RICHLAND CO.—A former state’s attorney has defied an order from the bench issued last year and has filed a motion attempting to stop Disclosure from publishing factual court accounts, calling them “harassment.”
Former Richland County state’s attorney, now pseudo defense attorney Chuck Roberts, filed a motion on July 22, 2013 asking Judge Robert Hopkins to hold Disclosure Publisher Jack Howser in contempt if he didn’t show cause as to why he published articles about his stepfather’s attempt to enforce what he says is a violation of an Order of Protection entered against him in April 2012.
The problem with the motion is that Roberts is saying articles published about Dan Howser are “harassment,” even though they are a stringently accurate depiction of Dan Howser’s attempts to harass Disclosure staff, and all at the behest of Roberts, who was using the 2011 OP in an effort to gain unfair advantage over the Howsers in a family case…in which he also happens to be the attorney for the opposing side.
Called for progress to be made in case
The Disclosure Howsers had, back in May, called for a hearing on the status of the OP, since in more than a year, several terms that the elder Howser had attempted to have the court enforce had not been upheld: That a survey be conducted of the properties of the two (as they are adjacent) and that a wall or fence be built between the properties are but two of the “demands” the elder Howser was making for two and a half years under the petition, and which the Disclosure Howsers were perfectly willing to do all along…but it was never done.
In particular, the survey was the thing the Disclosure Howsers were hoping to see accomplished, as the elder Howsers have taken over about ten feet of the adjacent property…but this was probably why the elder Howsers were refusing to get the survey completed.
So as a status update, the Disclosure Howsers were hoping to see about getting the survey completed so they could reclaim their property, since they’d been paying taxes on it the entire time it was being utilized by someone else.
Instead, Roberts, as is his usual tactic, caused a stall in the proceedings by filing yet another nonsense motion.
Nonsense, inapplicable use of Illinois’ Domestic Violence Act
The motion is nonsensical because in September of 2012, Judge Tom Sutton (who has since retired) was asked to clarify exactly what it was the former judge, Kim Harrell, believed was “harassment” as issued by Jack Howser against his stepfather.
Under Illinois’ Domestic Violence Act, a person filing an OP has to be related in some way to the defendant, and has to have been “harassment, interference with personal liberty, physical abuse or stalking, or neglected/exploited” (the latter if the complainant is a dependant—in other words, dependent upon the individual against whom the OP is filed) in some way, such as elder abuse or abuse of a child that cannot take care of itself or be expected to. The OP generally includes acts of violence, but is largely limited to a prohibition of harassment, interference with personal liberty, physical abuse or stalking.
The elder Howser claimed none of the above against him because he is not a dependant of the younger Howser. The elder Howser’s wife, Alexis Davis, could not claim any of the above against the younger. The brother of Jack Howser, Tom Howser, attempted to claim a “violent act” against his brother (when Jack Howser was target practicing on his own property March 11, 2011), but that, too, was shown to be a stretch and could not be construed a “violent act,” in particular against the elder Howser, as he wasn’t even home at the time.
Vague ruling
Therefore, when Harrell ruled in April of 2012 against Jack Howser, it appeared that her ruling was settled on “harassment,” this coming from truthful articles that appeared in Disclosure over the previous three years. The elder Howser had claimed that the articles, while factual (he never disputed the veracity of the information contained therein), “harassed” him because he would go to the American Legion or VFW in Olney and “have to hear about being in Disclosure.”
At no time did he lay claim to the obvious fact that the people who were really “harassing” him were the people at the watering holes where he hung out; instead, he chose to blame a publication, and harass that publication, solely because he was in some way related to the publisher (Dan Howser is the adoptive father of Jack Howser, and is not related by blood).
Also at no time did the elder Howser ever refute the veracity of what was printed; he only complained that it was.
Harrell hedged when she issued her ruling, not coming right out and stating that the articles prima facie harassed the elder Howser; she only made vague allusions to his “feeling harassed” by the factual articles.
Removed from case
Harrell was removed from the case in June when Disclosure discovered that they had been writing critically of her husband, Jack Harrell, an arrogant former Illinois State Police trooper who was brokering a deal with the county for the purchase, from his company, of tens of thousands of dollars worth of radio equipment, and that her arbitrary and vague decision to issue the OP was likely based on her contempt of the publication for causing her husband much grief (as his associates had advised Disclosure he was having a fit over seeing his name in print beginning January 2012, even though Disclosure’s new staff writer misspelled the name for several months, calling him ‘Jack Harold’ and thus not tipping the more experienced staff to the fact that it was the judge’s husband.)
When the case was handed to Sutton, he couldn’t make heads or tails out of what on earth Harrell was saying constituted “harassment,” either, since there hadn’t been a court reporter present at the hearings and he could only go by the former judge’s notes…which were, of course, vague, since she was obviously biased against the publication when she was making her ruling, and didn’t want that bias to show.
So Sutton upheld the OP on somewhat arbitrary grounds himself (largely because when asked for clarification as to what constituted “harassment” in the case, he simply couldn’t do it.)
But he did issue one edict from the bench, this in response to Jack Howser’s motion for clarification, which was pending all summer of 2012 until someone could finally hear it, and tell Disclosure whether or not there was some hidden, or even overt, restriction Harrell was attempting to impose on Disclosure’s reporting of factual events and of opinion pieces, which are, under the First Amendment, protected speech.
Sutton: NO prohibition from publication
In the response, Sutton clearly stated:
“The motion for clarification of the respondent raises the question previously addressed as to whether the trial court, by entering a plenary order of protection, was enjoining the responded from publishing articles about the petitioner,” Sutton said on Sept. 28, 2012. “As I indicated before, the respondent points out the trial court’s (Harrell’s) decision finding harassment made in part by articles he published in the Disclosure about the petitioners, therefore he reasons that the order of protection ordering him not to harass the petitioners, in effect, orders him not to publish articles about the petitioners.
“The motion specifically states that the respondent seeks clarification of the court’s ruling as to whether he is enjoined from publishing articles in the Disclosure regarding any of the petitioners.
“My review of that order,” Sutton said very clearly, and which is noted in the transcript on file in the case, “I find that the trial court did not impose any prohibition or restriction on the publication of articles in the Disclosure newspaper.” (italics ours for emphasis—ed.)
“The only remedy that could be remotely considered a prohibition or restriction was that the respondent, Jack Howser, is prohibited from committing the following acts of abuse or threats of abuse, and those are listed as harassment, interference with personal liberty, physical abuse or stalking. However, the trial court was specific and did not order a prohibition or restriction on publication, only a prohibition to not harass.”
Prior Restraint = unconstitutional
That was the extent of Sutton’s attempt to clarify what Harrell was trying to do: Tell Disclosure it couldn’t publish something about Dan Howser because it would ‘harass’ him without telling them they “couldn’t publish something” (known as ‘Prior Restraint,’ or censorship, which decades ago was ruled illegal and in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of freedom of the press) because it would violate the tenuous ‘harassment’ portion of Illinois’ Domestic Violence Act…which, according to legal research, has NEVER included publication of factual articles about a person seeking an OP.
Prior Restraint has had court cases upheld since the beginning of the twentieth century: A court cannot order a newspaper to not publish something it’s about to publish, or the court can be found in violation of the First Amendment.
Roberts apparently is attempting to get around this “prior” issue by stating, in his July 22 filing, that it’s filed after the fact of ‘harassment.’
However, this is the snake chasing its tail again: Sutton clearly stated that there was nothing in Harrell’s order that directly found articles in this publication were harassment of the elder Howser.
This is, however, what Roberts is trying to allege.
Cherry-picking disparate facts
In his filing, he states that in the order filed on May 4, 2012 (after the OP was issued), “the respondent, Jack Howser, was prohibited from taking any action to harass the Petitioner, Daniel Howser…that Jack Howser has used his newspaper in order to cause stress and anguish upon the Petitioner, Daniel Howser.”
Roberts reasons that Harrell’s order “is based upon articles written in the past which could only be characterized as not newsworthy, and in an effort to cause humiliation to the Petitioner.” However, Roberts neglects to note that he’s referencing columns, not articles, columns not being “news” but being opinion pieces (which are protected speech), a common mistake made among lay people who don’t understand the difference.
Roberts, because he had a relative who was active in the Illinois Press Association years ago, somehow thinks he is all-knowing/all-seeing/all-understanding about just what does and does not constitute journalism; however, for all his posturing about it, he seems woefully ill-informed on the technicalities of it.
In his petition, he further stated that “nothing in the OP would appear to be a restraint on any First Amendment right that the newspaper, or Respondent, would have to print newsworthy items,” again, cherry-picking disparate facts out of Sutton’s comments to fit his argument, as it’s already been established that no judge can tell Howser what to publish or not publish, regardless of “newsworthiness.”
All public officials/public figures
Roberts goes on to incorrectly state that “none of the Petitioners, Daniel Howser, Alexis Howser or Thomas Howser, would to be (sic) considered to be public figures.”
All three are indeed either public officials (public figures) or former public officials, of which plenty of evidence exists to suggest it: Dan Howser is a retiree from the U.S. Postal Service, the U.S. military and a former jailer as well as former candidate for a public (elected) office in Richland County, that of coroner, all publicly-supported entities. Alexis Howser and Tom Howser both are currently, and have been for years, employed at Lawrence Correctional Center, a publicly-supported entity.
The definition of public officials/public figures is that they be elected, employed or even volunteering for a publicly-supported (taxpayer-supported) entity, which subjects them to open scrutiny both publicly and in the press, as citizens have the right to redress grievances with (criticize openly) their government under the First Amendment, and the type of people representing (being paid for by) their government is of course a facet that can be criticized, both in a news piece and in an opinion piece.
Stating opinions of, and writing news pieces about, former and current government employees is the very definition of protected speech, and is what defines and separates America from the rest of the world, under the First Amendment.
Calls upon OP for Prior Restraint
Roberts then goes on to state “that disregarding the restraints in the OP issued, Howser has…caused stories to be published within Disclosure, which would alarm and disturb Daniel Howser and are certainly not newsworthy.”
The ridiculousness of this can be seen in the next paragraphs of allegations:
“The first publication by Jack Howser occurred in Disclosure in a ‘Special October 2012 edition’ wherein he places a picture of his father on the cover of the newspaper, referencing this very OP case and referencing a series of these articles to come…such stories have appeared in November 2012, wherein story commented on page 25, under the heading ‘Publisher Assaulted by Brother in Public,’ and contained a picture of Denaiel Howser’s residence, with an arrow allegedly pointed to a video camera stationed at the residence.”
Somehow, Roberts managed to overlook subsequent publications beyond the November 2012 date, as well as all Heartland publications which included the same articles, and skipped right on to May-June 2013, wherein he stated “the publisher is identified as a party to the story referring to his ‘bizarre stepfather, Daniel Howser” as “not a newsworthy story, and exactly the type of thing that should be prohibited by an OP as being harassed.”
He also managed to neglect to point out that all photos run in said issues are on file as exhibits from the defense, and are a matter of public record for ANY publication to produce.
What Chuck Roberts thinks is ‘newsworthy’??
What’s frightening about the matter is that Roberts is referencing coverage, down to minute detail, of all the court hearings that began occurring in the case from 2012 forward, as that’s all that was included in early coverage (October to December, encompassing four issues of the regular edition of Disclosure and three of Disclosure Heartland) of what’s clearly a Richland County court case.
How Roberts could think that coverage of testimony in a court case, and all attendant evidence presented, “isn’t newsworthy,” is to demean his own profession and indeed his own work as both a state’s attorney and a defense attorney, as he is essentially saying that court cases should not see coverage in a newspaper because it involves someone who doesn’t want to see his name in print.
Because Roberts is Dan Howser’s buddy from decades back, he is putting himself out on a limb by asserting that he knows what is “newsworthy” better than a man who’s been in journalism for half his adult life.
It is therefore apparent that Roberts has become hell-bent to, one way or the other, stop Disclosure from publishing even one item, which could turn to other items, and ultimately could lead to the ceasing of publication altogether.
Big guns called in
The case has been set for a date in November to be heard.
It’s anticipated that because Roberts is attempting to violate Disclosure’s First Amendment rights and thus set precedent for the government’s ever-increasing restrictions on how citizens function in their day-to-day lives, Disclosure will be calling in the big guns for assistance in defending this frivolous case; local attorney Jon Racklin has been handling it to this point.
Watch the website and this publication for updates, as Disclosure will NOT ALLOW a pissant podunk attorney to violate the rights of ANY publication that is presenting undisputedly factual articles about commencing court cases.