32 Replies to “U.S. War Hero and Chicago City Employee Carmen Hernandez Video”

  1. Hey Smoking Joe:

    Why is Carmen Hernandez, still working for the City of Chicago and now featured on Chicago clout? Everyone saying he’s a gun Runner, I don’t know how true that is but I do know that it is still a violation of the city of Chicago rules to own or maintain a gun or guns within the City. The police hasn’t done anything but their Jobs, stop trying to make the police department out to be the bad guys–They are the first ones you call when, crazy people want to use the arms they
    bear against others..By the way smoking Joe: it’s still a violation of City of Chicago
    Policies and Rules to be upon City property making a video. ***UNAUTHORIZED PRESENCE ON CITY PROPERTY***. Hey, I work for and LOVE, this city. In this instance, you had no right to feature Mr. Hernandez upon City property, putting the Water management in bad light. I’m sure nothing will become of this because i’m informed that you guys got Mr. Zander over a barrel. Oh my.
    (Response) If you think a violation has been made call the Chicago Inspector General. 1-773-478-7799. You need proof and you need an Alderman to make it go forward, I suggest Alderman Banks of Alderman Levar. You can also call Mr. Spatz the Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Water Management at 312-744-7001. Snitch on all the footage we have in archive. Remember, it is your job as an employee of the City of Chicago to report corruption and crime. Patrick McDonough aka bazooka Joe!

  2. LETTER: Illinois should pass concealed carry law

    STAN CARPENTER, Charleston

    It has come to our attention in the past and now that Illinois is way behind her times.

    Illinois is a great state and I am very proud to call it my home, as it has been for almost the past 60 years. The people are very friendly and it in itself is a very nice place to visit and live.

    We have but one problem and have had it for some time. The right to protect ourselves.

    We live in a state where the lawmakers are not at all thinking of our welfare and being safe every day. Our police do a very fine job in taking care of crime. They place their lives on the line every day for us.

    As you may know the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers have no legal obligation to protect your life.

    In any given situation when the police are called and they do not get there on time, a life could have been save if someone would have had a CCW permit. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states that do not have concealed carry laws in effect.

    Who are these people? They do not have the right to tell me I can’t protect myself and my children. Are the lives of their children more valuable than mine?

    We should have the right to defend ourself anywhere we go. Illinois, it’s time for us to take our state back and let these lawmakers know how we feel.

    Please take a few seconds and make a call to your congressmen or your state representative and tell him that you demand your rights.

    Ask them to support bill HB0367 the family and personal protection act. I want my grandchildren to be safe. If this does not become a reality in my lifetime, I will at least know that I have made an effort.

    We have a petition to sign, please give me a call and support this bill. Time is very important.



  3. Nine Myths of Gun Control

    * Myth #1 “Guns are only used for killing”

    Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good
    Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their
    livelihoods – there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to
    a gun – five lives are protected per minute – and, of those 2.5 million
    protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved

    * Myth #2 “Guns are dangerous when used for protection”

    US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most
    effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer
    injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is
    safer than not resisting at all.[3] The myth that “guns are only used for
    killing and the myth that “guns are dangerous when used for protection
    melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist
    because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think
    to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let
    us examine the other common myths.

    * Myth #3 “There is an epidemic of gun violence”

    Even their claim of an “epidemic of violence is false. That claim, like
    so many other of their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated
    that few think to question the claim by checking the FBI and other data.
    Homicide rates have been stable to slightly declining for decades except
    for inner city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug
    trafficking. We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city
    contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in
    Britain and the other paragons of gun control.[2]

    The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media
    violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city,
    poverty is so severe that crime has become a rational career choice for
    those with no hope of decent job opportunities.[4]

    * Myth #4 “Guns cause violence”


    For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and,
    despite such gun control, the African-American teenage male homicide rate
    in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 – 20 times the US average![5] The US
    group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence,
    middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 –
    about half of the US average.[6]

    If the “guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the
    alleged “easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns,
    have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one-ninth of DC’s overall homicide
    rate of 80.6?[7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun
    control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa
    2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian
    gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2,
    California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)?[7] The
    “guns-cause-violence and “guns exacerbate violence theories founder.
    Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media
    violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership.


    National Safety Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been
    falling steadily since the beginning of this century and now hover at an
    all time low. This means that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths
    occur annually, a far cry from the familiar false imagery of “thousands
    of innocent children.[8]


    Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase
    in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging,
    leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in
    total suicide rates.[3] People who are intent in killing themselves find
    the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically
    correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but
    do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?

    * Myth #5 The “Friends and Family fallacy”

    It is common for the public health advocates of gun bans to claim that
    most murders are of “friends and family”. The medical literature includes
    many such false claims, that “most [murderers] would be considered law
    abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger”[9 ]and “most
    shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are
    acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for

    Not only do the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a
    minority of homicides,[11] but the FBI’s definition of acquaintance and
    domestic homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to
    the decedent. That dueling drug dealers are acquainted does not make
    them “friends”. Over three-quarters of murderers have long histories of
    violence against not only their enemies and other “acquaintances,” but
    also against their relatives.[12,13,14,15] Oddly, medical authors have no
    difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic
    is not gun control – “A history of violence is the best predictor of
    violence.”[16] The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are
    overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence
    inflicted upon those close to them. This reality belies the imagery of
    “friends and family” murdering each other in fits of passion simply
    because a gun was present “in the home.”

    * Myth #6 “A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be
    killed or kill a family member as an intruder”

    To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one’s family
    with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann’s
    long-discredited claim: “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a
    family member than an intruder.”[17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax
    dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense

    The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives
    saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property
    protected not Kellermann’s burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in
    a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the
    predator.[3] Any study, such as Kellermann’ “43 times” fallacy, that only
    counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a
    thousand-fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only
    measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed
    by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are
    the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by
    deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives
    protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.[2]

    Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to “2.7 times,”[18] but he
    persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot
    distinguish between “cause” and “effect.” His method would be like
    finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then
    concluding that diet drinks “cause” obesity.

    Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality,
    alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From
    such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his
    findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was
    interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her
    to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn’t even
    believe his own studies.

    * Myth #7 “The costs of gun violence are high”

    The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is
    approximately $1.5-billion per year[20]- less than 0.2% of America’s
    $800-billion annual health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun
    violence, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of
    “lost lifetime earnings” or “years of productive life lost” – assuming
    that gangsters, drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive
    as teachers, factory workers, and other good Americans – to generate
    inflated claims of $20-billion or more in “costs.”[20] One recent study
    went so far as to claim the “costs” of work lost because workers might
    gossip about gun violence.[21]

    What fraction of homicide victims are actually “innocent children” who
    strayed into gunfire? Far from being pillars of society, it has been
    noted that more than two-thirds of gun homicide “victims” are drug
    traffickers or their customers.[22,23] In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide
    “victims” had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses.[23]
    These active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but
    also an average economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before
    apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison.[24]
    Because the anti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the
    issue of “costs,” we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent
    “careers” short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may
    actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5
    billion annually – three times the declared “costs” of guns. Those annual
    cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from
    guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings
    from innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted,
    and property protected by guns.

    Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a
    substantial net benefit to our society. Other benefits, such as the
    feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun
    ownership, are less easily quantified. There is no competent research
    that suggests making good citizens’ access to guns more difficult
    (whether by bureaucratic “red tape,” taxation, or outright bans) will
    reduce violence. It is only good citizens who comply with gun laws, so it
    is only good citizens who are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by
    jurisdictions with the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City,
    Washington, DC, etc.), disarming these good citizens before violence is
    reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs
    more – not fewer – lives.

    * Myth #8 “Gun control will keep guns off the street’ “

    Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug
    trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount
    of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honor
    additional gun laws.

    Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their
    proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police-state tactics
    cannot effectively enforce gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a
    country whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned
    civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994.[25]

    Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws,
    good people who already honor the laws of common decency. Placing
    further impediments in the path of good citizens will further
    disproportionately disarm those good people – especially disarming good,
    poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest risk.

    If “better” data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public
    policy implications. Until such time, the data suggest that victim
    disarmament is not a policy that saves lives.

    What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally-competent, law-abiding
    citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection –

    Brady I and Brady II

    The extremists at Handgun Control Inc. boast that “23,000 potential
    felons”[28] [emphasis added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in
    the first month of the Brady Law. Several jurisdictions have reviewed
    the preliminary Brady Law data which resulted in the initial Bureau of
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) overestimated appraisal[29] of the
    “success” of the Brady Law.

    The Virginia State Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other
    jurisdictions have shown that almost every one of those “potential”
    felons were not felons or otherwise disqualified from gun ownership. Many
    were innocents whose names were similar to felons. Misdemeanor traffic
    convictions, citations for fishing without a license, and failure to
    license dogs were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer
    tag that labeled the others as “potential” felons.[30] In transparent
    “governmentese,” BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, “we feel [the
    Brady Law has] been a success, even though we don’t have a whole lot of
    numbers. Anecdotally, we can find some effect.”[31]

    Even if the preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed
    about 6.3% of retail sales were “possible” felons – consistent with
    repeated studies showing how few crime guns are obtained in retail
    transactions. A minuscule number of actual felons has been identified by
    Brady Law background checks, but the US Department of Justice is unable
    to identify even one prosecution of those felons.[32 ] In such
    circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to
    no benefit at all. The National Institute of Justice has shown that very
    few crime guns are purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns are
    obtained as black market, stolen guns, or from similar non-retail
    sources.[28] Since none of Handgun Control Inc.’s Brady I or Brady II
    suggestions impact on the source of 93% of crime guns, their symbolic
    nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to reduce crime or violence.

    Residential gun dealers

    The press and broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers,
    pejoratively named “kitchen table” dealers, yet the claim that such
    dealers are the source of a “proliferation of guns on our streets” is
    contradicted by data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
    (BATF). Those data show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold
    no guns at all.[33 ]In fact, Congressional testimony before enactment of
    the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the
    large number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy.
    Prior to FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three
    guns per year at gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and
    therefore illegal, gun dealers. To avoid such harassment and prosecution,
    thousands of American gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed
    gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby claim BATF does
    not have the resources to audit the paperwork monster it created.
    Reducing the number of gun dealers will only ensure that guns are more
    expensive – unaffordable to the poor who are at greatest risk from
    violence, ensuring that gun ownership becomes a privilege of only the
    politically connected and the affluent.

    Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or
    law-abiding gun dealers who are not the source of crime guns, is it not
    more reasonable – though admittedly more difficult – to target the real
    source of crime guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the
    supply of legal guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun
    stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe effort should focus on
    targeting the actual “black market” in stolen guns. It is equally
    important to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most
    particularly by presenting attractive life opportunities and career
    alternatives to the inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and
    disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence in our

    * Myth #9 “Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection”

    Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently
    as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it
    with a better safety record than the police.[3] About 11% of police
    shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an
    innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent
    person are loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are
    less likely to be wounded than the police.

    We can explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the
    simple truth remains – citizens have an excellent record of protecting
    themselves and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering
    fantasies of the gun control lobby has come true.

    “Treat cars like guns”

    Advocates of increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile
    model of gun ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and
    incompletely applied. It is routinely overlooked that no license or
    registration is needed to “own and operate” any kind of automobile on
    private property. No proof of “need” is required for automobile
    registration or drivers’ licensure. Once licensed and registered,
    automobiles may be driven on any public road and every state’s licenses
    are given “full faith and credit” by other states. There are no waiting
    periods, background checks, or age restrictions for the purchase of
    automobiles. It is only their use – and misuse – that is regulated.

    Although the toll of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns,
    no “arsenal permit” equivalent is asked of automobile collectors or
    motorcycle racing enthusiasts. Neither has anyone suggested that
    automobile manufacturers be sued when automobiles are frequently misused
    by criminals in bank robberies, drive-by shootings, and all manner of
    crime and terrorism. No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because
    they “might” be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph
    speed limit, even though we know “speed kills.” Who needs a car capable
    of three times the national speed limit? “But cars have good uses” is the
    usual response. So too do guns have good uses, the protection of as many
    as 2.5-million good Americans every year.

    Progressive reform

    Complete, consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile
    model of gun ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate
    and enhance public safety. Reasonable compromise on licensing and
    training is possible. Where state laws have been reformed to license and
    train good citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection, violence
    and homicide have fallen.[11,26,27] Even unarmed citizens who abhor guns
    benefit from such policies because predators cannot determine in advance
    who is carrying a concealed weapon.

    Fear mongering and the gun control lobby

    In opposing progressive reforms that restore our rights to
    self-protection, the anti-self-defense lobby has claimed that reform
    would cause blood to run in the streets, that inconsequential family
    arguments would turn into murderous incidents, that the economic base of
    communities would collapse, and that many innocent people would be
    killed[26,27] In Florida, the anti-self-defense lobby claimed that blood
    would run in the streets of “Dodge City East,” the “Gunshine State” —
    but we do not have to rely on irrational propaganda, imaginative imagery,
    or political histrionics. We can examine the data.

    Data, not histrionics

    One-third of Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have
    reformed laws to allow good citizens to readily protect themselves
    outside their homes.[26,27] In those states crime rates are lower for
    every category of crime indexed by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.[11]
    Homicide, assault, and overall violent crime are each 40% lower, armed
    robbery is 50% lower, rape is 30% lower, and property crimes are 10%
    lower.[11] The reasonable reform of concealed weapon laws resulted in
    none of the mayhem prophesied by the anti-self-defense lobby. In fact,
    the data suggest that, providing they are in the hands of good citizens,
    more guns “on the street” offer a considerable benefit to society –
    saving lives, a deterrent to crime, and an adjunct to the concept of
    community policing.

    As of 12/31/94, Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent
    person had been killed or injured by a licensed gun owner in the 6 years
    post-reform. Of the 188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%) were revoked for
    misuse of the firearm. Not one of those revocations were associated with
    any injury whatsoever.[27] In opposing reform, fear is often expressed
    that “everyone would be packing guns,” but, after reform, most states
    have licensed fewer than 2% (and in no state more than 4%) of qualified

    Notwithstanding gun control extremists’ unprophetic histrionics , the
    observed reality was that crime fell, in part, because vicious predators
    fear an unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they
    fear apprehension by police[34] or fear our timid and porous criminal
    justice system. It is no mystery why Florida’s tourists are targeted by
    predators – predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida’s citizens,
    tourists are unarmed.

    Those who advocate restricting gun rights often justify their proposals
    “if it saves only one lifeI.” There have been matched state pair
    analyses, crime trend studies, and California county-by-county
    research[27] demonstrating that licensing law-abiding, mentally-competent
    adults to carry concealed weapons for protection outside their homes
    saves many lives, so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if
    saving lives is truly their motivation.

    The right

    Importantly, the proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail
    to note that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are
    inappropriate to a constitutional right (gun ownership and use). Let
    there be no doubt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged an
    individual right to keep and bear arms.[35] It is specifically the
    “weapons of war” – militia weapons – that are protected. The intent of
    the Second Amendment was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual
    right to arms, a citizen militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal
    government. That the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right, but done
    little to protect that right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the
    Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before those rights became
    politically fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken over a
    century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights
    guaranteed to African-Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment?

    Besides Second Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and
    bear arms, there are Ninth,[36] Tenth,[35] and Fourteenth Amendment,[37]
    as well as “natural right”[38] guarantees to self-protection.

    Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme
    Court case law and history of the right to keep and bear arms,
    thirty-five support the individual right view and only four support the
    “collective right only” view[39] (and three of these four are authored or
    co-authored by employees of the antiselfdefense lobby). One would never
    guess such a legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual
    misinterpretations of the right in the medical literature and popular
    press. The error of the gun prohibitionist view is also evident from the
    fact that their “collective right only” theory is exclusively an
    invention of the twentieth century “gun control” debate – a concept of
    which neither the Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary
    seems to have had any inkling.

    California and Concealed Weapons

    California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have
    the lowest rates of concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of
    murder and the counties with the highest rates of concealed license
    issuance have the lowest rates of murder.[27]

    It has also been noted that current California law gives considerable
    discretion to police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of
    Concealed Weapon Licenses. Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of
    that discretion is common. The result? In many jurisdictions only the
    affluent and politically connected are issued such licenses. In
    California few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even
    though poor minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from


    The police do not have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do
    not schedule their crimes or notify the police in advance, so the police
    cannot be where they are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They
    can only arrive later to count the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the

    There have been state-by-state analyses, county-by-county research, and
    crime trend studies. All the research shows that allowing good citizens
    to protect themselves outside their homes is a policy that saves lives.
    The anti-self defense lobby advances many proposals in hopes that it will
    “save only one life.” Reform of concealed carry laws is a policy that
    saves many lives, so it is a policy that should be supported by the gun
    control lobby, if saving lives is really their interest.

    Will Stockton base its policy on experience and sound data? or will
    Stockton fall prey to misinformation, fear, prejudice, and imaginative
    false imagery?[40]

    We beg you. Let Stockton’s good citizens protect themselves, their loved
    ones, and their livelihoods. The ordinance before you costs no money and
    it will save many lives.
    10. Ask Carmen Nernandez from Chicago, Illinois. Enough is enough. We want our guns legal.

  4. Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
    The Second Amendment:

    A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
    The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

    The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a “collective right.” The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people’s right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

    There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

    Evidence of an Individual Right

    In his popular edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
    In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
    This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
    Not only are Tucker’s remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
    “Because ‘[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,’ the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era.” (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)

    (William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)

    Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms:

    The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
    This is another quote where it is obvious that “the people” refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear (“the prohibition is general”) that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.
    (In 1791 William Rawle was appointed United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)

    Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 (“Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States”). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):

    The next amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
    The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

    As the Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this “passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
    Story adds:

    And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
    Story laments the people’s lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being “consistent with the theory that the Second Amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia.” (See Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)
    The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.

    More Evidence Supporting an Individual Right

    After James Madison’s Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it’s the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

    As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
    “A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe’s analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear ‘their private arms.’ The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights.” (Halbrook, Stephen P. “The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment”. Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).
    Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

    Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
    The Federalist Papers

    Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:

    What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen…The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
    James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
    Here, like Story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens’ right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.

    The Federalist Papers Continued – “The Original Right of Self-Defense”

    The Founders realized insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia’s duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort.

    “The original right of self-defense” is not a modern-day concoction. We now examine Hamilton’s Federalist No. 28. Hamilton begins:

    That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
    Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.
    Hamilton continues:

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
    Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:
    [T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
    Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state’s militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the Second Amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia. (For more on militia see: http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html.)

    Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:

    When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.
    Again, it is the recurring theme of the people’s right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the “security of a free state.”

    Connecting the Dots…

    “The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . ”
    — The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)
    Although the Federalist Papers were written prior to the drafting of the Bill of Rights (but after the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.

    The Purpose of the Militia Clause

    “Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people’s right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized.” (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))
    For more information about justification clauses see: Volokh, Eugene, The Commonplace Second Amendment, (73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998)). (See also, Kopel, David, Words of Freedom, National Review Online, May 16, 2001.)

    Parting Shots

    There are 3 ways the Second Amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:

    It protects a state’s right to keep and bear arms.
    The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right’s scope.
    The term “people” refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.
    Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the Second Amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period (see Guncite’s Is there contrary evidence? and Second Amendment challenge).

    Instead of the “right of the people,” the Amendment’s drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the Fifth Amendment, had they meant to restrict the right. (Additionally, see GunCite’s page here showing evidence that the term, “people,” as used in the Bill of Rights, referred to people as individuals.)

    It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the Second Amendment.

    The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the Founding period is the one interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.

    Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a Second Amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.

    (The assertion that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right should not be confused with the claim that all gun control is un-constitutional. However, to read why many gun rights advocates oppose most gun controls, today, please see GunCite’s, Misrepresenting the Gun Control Debate.)

  5. Democratic nomine for President; Junior Senator (IL)

    Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws
    Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
    A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

    Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

    A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

    Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

    FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
    Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
    Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

    35. Do you support state legislation to:
    a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
    b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
    c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

    Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires–a staffer did–and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”

    Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

    Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
    Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
    A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

    Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008

    Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing
    Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
    A: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

    Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

    2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
    Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
    Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007

    Concealed carry OK for retired police officers
    Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
    When I queried him about the vote, he said, “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done–and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“

    It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

    Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007

    Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities
    Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?
    A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we’ve had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We’ve got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities. There aren’t any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who’ve been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That’s a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don’t have it right now.

    Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007

    Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality
    I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
    Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

    Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
    KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
    OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

    Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

    Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
    Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
    Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
    Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
    Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
    Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

    Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
    A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
    Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
    Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
    Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
    Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
    Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
    Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

  6. Chicago suburb reversed its 20-year-old weapons ordinance
    Updated 10:20 AM CDT, Wed, Nov 19, 2008

    “Winnetka is a better community because of the handgun ban,” Village President Ed Woodbury had said prior to Tuesday’s vote.

    Despite pleas from residents gathered at a town hall meeting Tuesday night, Winnetka officials voted to repeal a 20-year ban on handguns.

    A Supreme Court ruling in June declared that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms.

    In September, three Winnetka residents and the National Rifle Association sued the village, stating that the local ban violated their rights protected by the Constitution.

    The plaintiffs claimed they were “subjected to irreparable harm in that they were unable to obtain handguns and ammunition to protect themselves in their homes … subjecting them to endangerment from criminal intruders.”

    The Village Board referenced both the high court ruling and the lawsuit in making it’s decision Tuesday night. Council members said they feared if they didn’t repeal the ordinance it would cost the suburb thousands of dollars to fight the suit with the real risk of still losing in court.

    With the Winnetka ruling, handguns in homes will now be permitted for the first time in 20 years, but firing guns and gun sales will still be prohibited.

    The Village Council called a meeting in October to address the issue. A number of residents spoke up passionately, arguing to keep the ban.

    “Winnetka is a better community because of the handgun ban,” Village President Ed Woodbury said prior to Tuesday’s vote, according to WinnetkaTalk. “The choice in front of us is nothing short of terrible.”

    Related Stories
    Neighbor Rescues Hound From Icy Lake
    What You’re Doing Today (and Tonight): March 6
    Winnetka’s handgun ban, and others like it, has been closely examined since the Supreme Court ruling.

    Other Chicago suburbs that have taken steps to reverse their local handgun bans are Wilmette, Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park.

  7. New lawsuit alleges police torture under BurgeThursday, December 07, 2006 | 6:34 PMMayor Daley named says:

    New lawsuit alleges police torture under BurgeThursday, December 07, 2006 | 6:34 PMMayor Daley named in separate suit By Charles ThomasDecember 7, 2006 (WLS) — A lawsuit was filed against the City of Chicago and former police commander Jon Burge Thursday. The man who filed it alleges he was tortured by officers under Burge’s command.
    This is just the latest lawsuit related to the Jon Burge/Chicago police torture scandal. The alleged torture dates back to the 1970s, and some plaintiffs charge it continued through the early 1990s.
    Thirty-three-year-old Harold Hill claimed in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday that he was tortured in 1992 by Chicago police detectives under the last command of Lt. Jon Burge. As a teenager, Hill was convicted of rape and murder after he reportedly confessed. But he was exonerated and released from prison in 2005 after DNA evidence proved he could not have committed the crime.
    “I was young, I was scared. I didn’t know what to do. I was terrified,” said Harold Hill, alleged torture victim.
    Story continues belowAdvertisement
    “Looking back, the system has to ask how it is an innocent man confessed to a crime he didn’t commit,” said Jon Loevy, attorney for Hill.
    Burge, who was an Area Three commander in 1992, was fired the next year for torturing a different murder suspect a decade earlier. Last summer, a special prosecutor concluded Burge and his detectives had beaten, burned, and/or electro-shocked dozens of black male suspects. The prosecutor would not indict the mostly retired cops because the statute of limitations on their alleged crimes had expired.
    Hill’s lawyers have filed a civil suit seeking money damages.
    “Notwithstanding the problems with the confessions, Mr. Hill was tried. He was convicted and spent more than a decade wrongfully incarcerated,” Loevy said.
    Also Thursday, in another Burge-related lawsuit, a judge granted permission to the attorney for alleged torture victim Aaron Patterson to add Mayor Richard M. Daley as a defendant in Patterson’s civil lawsuit. Daley was Cook County state’s attorney during most of the 1980’s when the office prosecuted dozens of alleged torture victims.
    Then-police Superintendent Richard Breczek even wrote a letter to inform Daley that there was medical evidence of torture.
    “His state’s attorney took the confessions. They put innocent people in prison and never investigated any police torturing people when there is over 200 cases,” said Frank Avila, attorney for Aaron Patterson.
    Avila says he expects his motion to add Mayor Daley’s name as a defendant in the Patterson torture case will be resisted by Daley’s attorneys at hearings early next year. It is possible those hearings could happen in February during the height of the mayoral campaign.
    , December 07, 2006 | 6:34 PMMayor Daley named in separate suit By Charles ThomasDecember 7, 2006 (WLS) — A lawsuit was filed against the City of Chicago and former police commander Jon Burge Thursday. The man who filed it alleges he was tortured by officers under Burge’s command.
    This is just the latest lawsuit related to the Jon Burge/Chicago police torture scandal. The alleged torture dates back to the 1970s, and some plaintiffs charge it continued through the early 1990s.
    Thirty-three-year-old Harold Hill claimed in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday that he was tortured in 1992 by Chicago police detectives under the last command of Lt. Jon Burge. As a teenager, Hill was convicted of rape and murder after he reportedly confessed. But he was exonerated and released from prison in 2005 after DNA evidence proved he could not have committed the crime.
    “I was young, I was scared. I didn’t know what to do. I was terrified,” said Harold Hill, alleged torture victim.
    Story continues belowAdvertisement
    “Looking back, the system has to ask how it is an innocent man confessed to a crime he didn’t commit,” said Jon Loevy, attorney for Hill.
    Burge, who was an Area Three commander in 1992, was fired the next year for torturing a different murder suspect a decade earlier. Last summer, a special prosecutor concluded Burge and his detectives had beaten, burned, and/or electro-shocked dozens of black male suspects. The prosecutor would not indict the mostly retired cops because the statute of limitations on their alleged crimes had expired.
    Hill’s lawyers have filed a civil suit seeking money damages.
    “Notwithstanding the problems with the confessions, Mr. Hill was tried. He was convicted and spent more than a decade wrongfully incarcerated,” Loevy said.
    Also Thursday, in another Burge-related lawsuit, a judge granted permission to the attorney for alleged torture victim Aaron Patterson to add Mayor Richard M. Daley as a defendant in Patterson’s civil lawsuit. Daley was Cook County state’s attorney during most of the 1980’s when the office prosecuted dozens of alleged torture victims.
    Then-police Superintendent Richard Breczek even wrote a letter to inform Daley that there was medical evidence of torture.
    “His state’s attorney took the confessions. They put innocent people in prison and never investigated any police torturing people when there is over 200 cases,” said Frank Avila, attorney for Aaron Patterson.
    Avila says he expects his motion to add Mayor Daley’s name as a defendant in the Patterson torture case will be resisted by Daley’s attorneys at hearings early next year. It is possible those hearings could happen in February during the height of the mayoral campaign.

  8. Carmen Hernandez is a hero with a stellar background. The only thing the City of Chicago does by depriving him of his right to bear arms is that they are depriving it’s citizens of one more person who could help someone should the case arise. Pretty soon the only ones left in the city with guns will be the gangs and the police officers. Not exactly what our forefathers had in mind….

  9. Carmen Hernandez was never, or ever would be, a gun runner. Anyone who knows him can only describe him as levelheaded and respectful of the guns he owned.

  10. It was alleged that Carmen was showing his arson of illegal guns off to his buddies when one of them turn him into the police.
    How we know Carmen is not loading up his Van and dumping guns in our community?
    34 Chicago School Students were gunned down and killed and there has been silence. Why don’t Chicago Clout be the voice of those kids gunned down. ? The city don’t want to stop the shooting and you don’t want to speak against the shooting . Why? It’s not
    hurting anyone on your side of town, yet. The City of Chicago ran out of $100 gift cards on the gun buy back program.
    And the ordained by the chicago city
    council does not prohibit long guns, so
    one is still able to protect his family and self and home.

    (Response) Do you really believe Mayor Daley gives a damn about poor blacks in Chicago? Tutu came to Chicago to help Daley take the heat off Sanchez and the Streets and Sanitation three ring circus in Federal Court. Did you see Negro Tutu do anything for the poor blacks on the west-side? He was too busy with private plane trips with Rich and Maggie Daley. Scumbuckets, all of em!

  11. Hey smoking Joe:

    Why did you change my comment and put Mr. Zander name in and took your guy name out? Thats not right Joe, You shouldn’t edit folks comments to fit your own believes. I think that against the law too Joe. When i point out wrongdoing I’m a SNITCH, when you do it, you call it whistle blowing Joe. Right is right and wrong is wrong, the blade
    cuts both ways. Since you brought up Zander name JOE, you don’t think that
    he had a right to inquire of Mr. Carmen
    Hernandez of the pending gun charges
    against him? Especially since Mr.Zander
    was in charge of scheduling the disciplinary hearing. He could have put
    Mr. Hernandez on A. L. with-out pay pending the out come of his case in court. You guys want to blame everyone
    else but never want to man up and take
    responsibility for your own actions. Stop the Gun violence, Joe. STOP THE GUN VIOLENCE. STOP THE GUN VIOLENCE. STOP THE GUN VIOLENCE. Every man
    in this city should should march to
    the mayor’s office and demand that
    he man up and do something for his lack of responsibility in the killings of the kids on the street of chicago, MY QUESTION TO YOU JOE AND THE VIEWERS OF CHICAGO CLOUT IS; IF THE
    (Response) What authority does John Zander have, and how can you be sure?

  12. Hey Joe,

    If he has these big beliefs and is so proud of his opinions, and wants to cut down the viewers of Chicago Clout, why does it say Anonymous instead of his real name.

  13. OK Carmen! You look great in your uniform on! Protect your family and your rights dude!

  14. Nice work with the video Pat…cool music and nice transitions between scenes…who is that old gray haired host? Is he a friend of yours??

  15. The killings of these kids on the streets is because Daley is making it clear to them that they are black and he wants white rich people to take over their neighborhoods. He buses in the rich kids to their schools and throws them out of their schools. He closes their schools and their community centers and makes them feel unwanted. He tickets their parents cars and charges them heavy money to live here and pay parking meters here. He boots their cars and harasses them to make them not feel welcome. Daley has brought a hopeless aura to their lives and their neighborhoods. And Jessie Jackson jr. and sr. should be ashamed of themselves for their appalling silence. Shame on them all. And that’s the way it is.

  16. Pstrick edits lots of comments. Its not right but he can do it since he owns this blog. However it goes to show his true colors.

    Whistleblower or not he and all of his Associates are still required to follow the same rules that all city employees must.

    Patrick can dishes it out but cant take it.

    Anyways, later this spring some of his associated are going to have to defend their actions before the same law enforcement agencies they like to snich others on.

    You see Pat you cant violate others people rights because you are or are not a whistleblower. Even if you are trying to over cover coruption.

    Best of all your own posts are going to do you in.

    (Response) Thanks for your comments, the truth hurts, it will hurt much more later!

  17. The guy is in the freaking army and the Chicago Police handcuffed him? Carment was never in trouble before? This makes me want to cry! I am sorry and apoligise on behalf of every american! Thanks for protecting my country carmen! God Bless!

    (CBS) Educap is a multibillion-dollar student loan charity run by CEO Catherine Reynolds. As CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported Monday night, Educap is under investigation by the IRS and Congress for alleged abuse of its tax-exempt status because it charges high interest on charitable student loans, and provides lavish perks with millions in compensation for Reynolds and her husband.

    CBS News has obtained exclusive details of what may have been the biggest charity perk: use of Educap’s $31 million luxury jet, which costs thousands of dollars an hour to operate.

    Investigators say for five years, Reynolds jetted friends, family and luminaries to faraway and exotic destinations that sometimes had little to do with the charity’s mission.

    CBS News has learned that high-profile names on the Educap flight list include CIA Director Leon Panetta, former Sens. Tom Daschle and Ted Stevens, former FBI Director William Sessions and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.

    According to flight records, Panetta and Daschle, while not in public office, accompanied Educap’s Catherine Reynolds on flights to private business meetings not related to the charity.

    Reynolds also took Daschle and his wife on a tour with seven stops in Europe and the Middle East.

    Ted Stevens, his wife and daughter were along on dozens of flights, hitting destinations like Vail and Aspen, Colo., before the senator was convicted on corruption charges last fall.

    And records show Reynolds took Chicago’s Daley and his wife on 58 flights including ones to Turkey, Asia and Sweden.

    Watchdog Stephen Burd says money spent on the jet comes off the backs of students, who have Educap loans costing up to three times more than government loans.

    Attkisson asked Burd if he thought Educap was acting like a for-profit company operating as a charity.

    “Exactly,” said Burd, of the New America Foundation. “Educap is the worst case that I’ve seen of a charity – a so-called charity – abusing its tax-exempt status.”

    Reynolds wouldn’t talk with CBS News. Educap has said its loans are competitive with private companies. As for the jet, Educap has said its use was appropriate. None of the passengers would talk with us, but there’s no law against flying on charity jets. Panetta has told Congress he “acted in full compliance with tax laws.”

    EduCap sold its pricey jet after the IRS began looking into it. But that hasn’t ended the controversy – or the investigations.


  20. all you liberals saying we need to fight gun crime…chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country..not one murder in chicago has been committed with a legally bought and reistared gun. the people commiting these crimes dont care how many laws you pass. and guess what the police are happier that shit that this city is going down. so the citizens of shitcago should be able to defend theselves. carmen is a war hero. leave him alone

  21. The NRA should know about this injustice. Carmen is a hero of epic proportions.

  22. Sanchez testifying in his own defense at corruption trial
    Ex-city of Chicago official is charged with corruption

    March 17, 2009

    BY NATASHA KORECKI Federal Courts Reporter
    Under cross examination by a prosecutor, a former city of Chicago Streets and Sanitation Department official denied today that he lied to a grand jury when he testified he never used his connections with Mayor Daley’s Hispanic Democratic Organization to get city jobs for HDO members who did campaign work.

    All he did, Aaron DelValle said, was take requests from people to check whether they were on a lottery list for a city job.

    » Click to enlarge image Former Streets and San boss Al Sanchez enters the Federal Building on Tuesday for his city hiring trial.
    (John H. White/Sun-Times)

    RELATED STORIESI competed with Sanchez to get city jobs: witness

    “You weren’t checking to see if names were on a list,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Ruder said, pressing DelValle, a codefendant in the Al Sanchez City Hall corruption trial. “You were trying get them hired at Streets and Sanitation, isn’t that true?”

    “That’s not true,” DelValle said.

    Ruder also asked about a list of names that was found on DelValle’s computer. She asked whether it was a “clout list,” created the day before a big Navy Pier political fund-raiser in 2003.

    DelValle said no, it was just a Christmas card list.

    To which Ruder pointed out that DelValle’s own name was at the top of the list.

    “You attempted to send one to yourself, sir?” Ruder asked.

    “I don’t know why I had my name on there first,” DelValle said.

    DelValle, 36, was a $70,000-a-year assistant general superintendent under Sanchez in the Department of Streets and Sanitation. He left the department to be a Chicago cop and, while still with the police department, ran an unsuccessful campaign to be alderman of the 25th ward.

    During that campaign, in February 2007, he was called before a grand jury to testify about his involvement with HDO. He also told the grand jury he didn’t know anything about efforts to get Ambrosio Medrano, one of his opponents in the aldermanic race, kicked off the ballot over Medrano’s prior felony conviction.

    Delvalle’s testimony came as the trial nears its end. The defense case is expected to wrap up in time for closing arguments in the high-profile case to be offered Wednesday. On Monday, the prosecution rested its case after presenting less than two weeks of testimony.

    After returning from lunch today, Sanchez, the former city streets and sanitation commissioner, began testifying in his own defense.

    Sanchez, an HDO leader, faces federal corruption charges, accused of illegally arranging for city jobs and promotions for HDO members as a rewarda for their political work.

    On Monday, the final day of prosecution testimony, Daniel Katalinic, a retired city worker, told jurors that giving out certain city jobs based on politics, though illegal, became so prevalent at City Hall at one point that there was competition among various political groups.

    Katalinic said he sometimes sidestepped asking Sanchez to help him get members of his political organization hired and instead went straight to the Intergovernmental Affairs Office.

    Why? “Honestly, because I was in competition with different groups, and his group was one of the ones I was in competition with.”

    Katalinic was a major witness in the Hired Truck investigation into city hiring. He pleaded guilty in that case to paying $15,000 in bribes.

    Witnesses have testified that various people within City Hall operated their own political groups, focusing on certain campaigns. They would then try to reward their volunteers with either jobs or promotions by holding sham interviews or falsifying test scores, according to the testimony.

    Also Monday, the last prosecution witness, Benita Mangrum, an African-American woman who has highly uncommon training installing traffic signals, said she didn’t get a city job in the Bureau of Electricity doing the same work despite qualifications.

    “I found it odd,” Mangrum said after her testimony.

    She said she believes she is the only woman in Chicago who has those skills.

    At the time of her interview with the city, Mangrum said she wasn’t aware of allegations that hirees usually came off of clout lists.

    “I guess I wasn’t on any list,” Mangrum said.

    Contributing: Tim Novak

  23. Sanchez: HDO not Daley’s patronage army
    March 17, 2009 5:27 PM | 6
    Testifying in his own federal corruption trial today, former Chicago Streets and Sanitation boss Al Sanchez denied the Hispanic Democratic Organization was formed as a political patronage army.

    Witnesses for the prosecution have said HDO was formed to help elect Mayor Richard Daley in exchange for city jobs. Sanchez is accused of rigging hiring for loyal HDO campaign workers.

    But Sanchez said Latino supporters of Daley had pure intentions.

    “These were not mercenaries looking for something in return,” Sanchez said of his efforts to lead his fellow Southeast Side Hispanics for Daley’s first successful campaign for mayor in 1989.

    “They were people who actually cared about the community,” he said.

    Al Sanchez (left) and attorney Thomas Breen leave the Dirksen Federal Courthouse today. (Tribune / Terrence Antonio James.

    Sanchez said some may have harbored ulterior motives but “essentially it was about giving back the dignity of the community we once had.”

    When his lawyer asked if he organized Latinos for Daley to win city jobs, Sanchez replied, “No, it was about having a voice in an administration we believed would be very progressive.”

    Sanchez said he met with top Daley political strategist Timothy Degnan in 1988 at the headquarters of the Democratic Party in the Daley family’s native 11th Ward. Degnan asked Sanchez to support Daley.

    Sanchez said he withheld support until he was assured that if elected, Daley would give his community “the same services the Northwest Side was getting, the Southwest Side, the more affluent parts of the city.”

    HDO was formed officially in 1993 and went on to help campaigns for candidates endorsed by Daley for more than a decade.

    Sanchez said he had nothing to do with the allegedly fraudulent hiring process designed to favor those with clout. But he said he tried to foster diversity in the Streets and Sanitation Department as Daley’s commissioner between 1999 and 2005.

    Picking up garbage in Latino neighborhoods is different than other parts of town, as homes in those areas tend to produce more trash, he said.

    “They don’t have Gibson’s to go eat in the evening,” Sanchez said of the upscale Gold Coast steakhouse frequented by the city’s power brokers. “They eat at home.”

    He said he also tried to increase the ranks of female employees, who were underrepresented in Streets and Sanitation.

    Sanchez’s defense of his political activities followed a long discussion of his life story.

    Sanchez, 61, said discrimination against Mexican-Americans unfairly deprived him of many jobs he applied for at Southeast Side steel mills.

    While stationed at a military base in Colorado almost 40 years ago, Sanchez said he learned that the Coors brewery did not hire Mexican-Americans.

    Sanchez said he and a friend “boycotted the beer” when drinking at a bar near the base.

    Prompted by his lawyer, Thomas Breen, Sanchez told a tale that took jurors from a migrant farmer camp in rural Illinois to the corridors of City Hall power.

    Sanchez said his father was born to migrant farm laborers in a railroad boxcar in Roundout, Ill., and his mother came from Chicago’s South Deering neighborhood.

    He said he was born in a West Side apartment later knocked down in an urban-renewal project.

    “We were renters. It wasn’t a very nice place. I’m from a family that didn’t have a lot of money,” he told the jury.

    Sanchez said his family later moved to a Southeast Side neighborhood known as “Slag Valley” because “that’s where the steel mills dumped some of their slag,” the residue of the steel-making process.

    He said he was the first member of his family to finish high school in 1965, graduating from Chicago Vocational High School.

    “I got involved in what they called the Chicano Youth Organization,” Sanchez said.

    This was the first step, he testified, in his growing “cultural awareness” and involvement in issues on behalf of Latinos. From that activity he said he learned how the United States had “stolen the lands of the Southwest” from Mexico. The group also unsuccessfully pushed for Mexican food at their high school cafeteria.

    Migrant worker organizer Cesar Chavez became his idol, Sanchez said.

    He then described passing tests — but being repeatedly rejected — for jobs at the steel mills that employed many Southeast Siders for decades. When one factory personnel director told him he didn’t weigh enough, Sanchez said he went to a local sundae shop and “started eating malts,” drawing chuckles from jurors.

    He said he soon realized, however, that his rejections were due to discrimination. He settled for less lucrative mill jobs such as laborer.

    “You had to have a strong back. You didn’t use your mind a lot,” he said.

    Sanchez was drafted into the military and spent a year in Vietnam. Upon his return, he said, he got his bachelor’s degree in history and a teaching certificate from Western Illinois University.

    But he said he decided not to become a teacher and instead he “wanted to get into public service.” He began working for the city in 1974.

    Sanchez said his work with a group called the Southeast Alliance attracted the attention of Timothy Degnan, the political strategist for then-Cook County State’s Atty. Richard Daley. Degnan had an offer for Sanchez and his buddy from the neighborhood, Gilbert Delgado.

    “The proposition is that Richard Daley is looking for support in the Hispanic community,” Sanchez recalled of a 1988 meeting at the 11th Ward Democratic headquarters on Halsted Street. “He understands they are an important part of the city’s fabric.”

    Delgado, who was in the courtroom today with other close Sanchez friends, declined comment during a break in the testimony.

    A week later, at a sports bar at 95th Street and Union Avenue, Degnan met with a larger group of Southeast Side Latinos, Sanchez said. He told them Daley planned to run for mayor.

    “Rich Daley and his father always had a great understanding of the Hispanic community,” Sanchez said.

    Ray Gamboa, another longtime HDO member, testified last week that Degnan promised city jobs in exchange for campaign support. But Sanchez said that was not the deal, that he merely thought the campaign backing would yield “someone in the administration to understand” the needs of Chicago’s Hispanics.

    When he graduated high school, Sanchez said he came back to Chicago and asked a Southeast Side Hispanic community leader to put him in touch with a local Hispanic political leader.

    “He said, ‘See Ed Vrdolyak,'” Sanchez recalled, sparking laughter from jurors and the audience.

    Vrdolyak, the former alderman who recently eluded prison for his federal fraud conviction, was the longtime political boss of Sanchez’s 10th Ward home. A Croatian-American, he is notorious for leading the racially motivated opposition bloc to Chicago’s first black mayor, Harold Washington, in the “Council Wars” of the 1980s.

    Sanchez said he did not go see Vrdolyak and he complained that the 10th Ward got little help from City Hall due to Vrdolyak’s opposition to City Hall at a time when the steel mills were closing.

    But Sanchez’s testimony may have understated his ties to Vrdolyak. In a 2006 interview with the Tribune, Vrdolyak said Sanchez got his start in local politics as a “smart and hardworking” precinct captain for the 10th Ward Democrats.

    Under cross-examination by Assistant U.S. Atty. Manish Shah, Sanchez repeatedly said, “I was not in charge of hiring.”

    Pressed by Shah, he acknowledged he had been a precinct captain for Vrdolyak.

    At the end of his direct testimony, Sanchez said underlings cut his lawn and gave him gifts at surprise birthday parties. But he said all of that had nothing to do with their keeping city jobs, as prosecutors allege.

    “No, just drinking and eating … I received gifts but not substantial,” he said, adding they gave him a snowblower, a grill and bottles of tequila.

    Earlier, Sanchez’s co-defendant Aaron Delvalle testified in his own defense, flatly denying that he lied to a federal grand jury about helping Sanchez coordinate political hiring in the city department.

    Delvalle said he would sometimes ask about the hiring status of workers in the Hispanic Democratic Organization but had no way to influence whether they would be given jobs. He described himself as more of a data-entry employee than a right-hand man to Sanchez.

    He said he always gave HDO members the same answer when they asked him about job opportunities.

    “I’d say, ‘I have no role in the hiring process. I can’t hire you,’ ” said Delvalle, who is charged with perjury.

    Delvalle said he had a contentious meeting with prosecutors before he appeared before the grand jury in 2007. They accused him of lying, he said, and former Assistant U.S. Atty. Patrick Collins swore at him.

    “He said, ‘You’re a freaking disgrace to the uniform you wear,’ ” said Delvalle, who at the time was a sworn Chicago police officer. “I was confused.”

    On cross-examination, Assistant U.S. Atty. Julie Ruder asked Delvalle how it was that apparent job lists he kept on his computer wound up at the mayor’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs with the names listed in the same order. All of those candidates were hired, Ruder said.

    “I never gave it to anyone,” Delvalle said.

    Delvalle described another list of HDO coordinators as people to whom he had attempted to send Christmas cards, not an influence sheet.

    Ruder pointed out that Delvalle’s own name appeared on the paper.

    “You attempted to send one to yourself, sir?” she asked.

    “I don’t know why I had my name on there first,” Delvalle answered.

    Ruder also pointed out that Delvalle had reasons to lie in his 2007 grand jury appearance, including possible discipline at the police department and the potential impact on his campaign for alderman at the time.

    — Dan Mihalopoulos and Jeff Coen

  24. YOUNG KIDS GETTING KILLED IN THIS CITY AND THESE ARE TODAYS NATIONAL HEADLINES: “Oprah Winfrey’s puppy died” This is a real sick world. And has anyone seen Mayor Daley’s son yet? The press keeps covering for him too! Why don’t they press Daley for answers to all of his deals. It’s time someone took a bullhorn in front of Daley plaza.

  25. FEDS HAVE TO LET ECONOMY CORRECT ITSELF. With high prices, greed and high taxes the economy has to correct itself. There is nothing the feds can do to fix things. They have to let it happen. Then if they must give the people food stamps till the correction is over so be it. No one can stop a massively over heated economy from correcting itself. The feds intervention is going to drive prices higher very soon with it’s policy of printing too much money that is backed up by nothing. Times are bad and getting worse, throw in rising prices and no one will be buying. They will be planting gardens in their front lawns(which Daley will be taxing. Can you see his henchmen counting the tomatoes in your garden?Counting as he pockets a few), the people will get by. The feds lied about the figures so bad and kept rates too low for too long to fuel the boom that now has gone bust. They need to step aside. It’s not pretty but this is a time where if we got extra we have to help our neighbor for a while. Oh by the way, with everyone losing their jobs and their homes, this Democratic government in Chicago, Illinois and the white house think we need to be paying more taxes! Go figure. We’re Dooooooooooomed! (who was that guy on that cartoon from the Bozo show that used to say that?) We’re Dooooooooomed! It’s the ennnnnnnnd of the world as we know it, yes it is, NOT. Not that bad but not that good either.

  26. Lawyer: Sanchez was used by City hall fat cats

    March 18, 2009

    BY NATASHA KORECKI Federal Courts Reporter
    His voice trembling, a defense lawyer slammed a file on the table; “How dare these fats cats, how dare they not come in and say the truth,” attorney Tom Breen said of his client Al Sanchez, on trial in federal court. “He was used.”

    “How the heck can you charge this man!”a red-faced Breen yelled at prosecutors this afternoon.

    Over more than an hour of his closing argument, Breen distanced the former city of Chicago Streets and Sanitation boss from hiring schemes under scrutiny in federal court and instead called him a “poor jerk” who was charged with rigging city hiring while all the people who really held control went uncharged or won immunity from prosecution. Breen pointed to witness John Kosiba who testified to taking part in hiring schemes under a grant of immunity.

    “Take a real hard look at who they put their arms around,” Breen said, noting Kosiba now is a consultant, whose company has city contracts. “And they want to stop corruption?” Breen implored as people in the gallery laughed. “These people are prostitutes.”

    Breen said Sanchez sought his entire career to put Hispanics into city jobs and that he took part in a system in place for 30 years.

    Prosecutor Manish Shah will give rebuttal argument later this afternoon.

    Earlier in the day, a federal prosecutor told jurors Sanchez “was the one with the juice” at City Hall to get political workers hired.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Ruder said in closing arguments that, as a coordinator with Mayor Daley’s Hispanic Democratic Organization, Sanchez held “significant clout.”

    “Al Sanchez was the one with the juice,” Ruder said, referring to Sanchez’s testimony Tuesday, when he spoke of others as having “juice,” or clout, to get city jobs. “That was juice he had built up over the years at HDO,” and by supporting Daley’s campaigns, she said.

    Ruder said Sanchez knew about and participated in a scheme to reward political foot soldiers with city jobs.

    “The payday in this scheme was a city job — city jobs for political work through false representations,” Ruder said.

    She pointed to testimony from witnesses who said ratings forms were falsified and sham interviews were held to give the appearance that positions were being given out through proper channels, even as jobs were given to clout-backed candidates.

  27. Hiya sweetheart, are you staying out of trouble? If your saying that to your wife then I think you should really look in the mirror mr. junior private eye. Oh, by the way, has anyone seen Patrick Daley?

  28. I am gonna say it “Sandi Jackson for mayor!” I know you want to call me a jerk for saying that but you tell me who else there is? No friggin body!!!!!! The devil is better than Daley!!!!!

  29. CHICAGO (STNG) — In their second day of their deliberations, jurors have asked the judge Friday two questions about the mail fraud charges they’re weighing against former city of Chicago Streets and Sanitation Commissioner Al Sanchez.

    In a note to U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman, the jurors asked whether they needed to have a physical letter in evidence to convict on a mail fraud count. They also asked whether they can assume that a scheme involves mailing a letter.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Manish Shah said there was no physical evidence associated with the first two mail fraud charges but that witnesses testified about the mailings.

    But the jurors were told only to refer back to the jury instructions the judge gave them. Under those instructions, jurors had been told they could consider circumstantial, as well as direct ,evidence.

    The jury is deciding whether Sanchez took part in an illegal scheme to dole out coveted city jobs to political foot soliders in exchange for their campaign work with Mayor Daley’s Hispanic Democratic Organization.

    Sanchez, 61, was a coordinator with HDO.

    He and family members are sitting outside the courtroom awaiting the verdict.

    On trial with him is his former top aide, Aaron Del Valle, a onetime 25th ward aldermanic candidate and Chicago cop who is accused of lying to a grand jury about his role.

Comments are closed.