Will Co. (ECWd) -
We reported on an Affidavit which was provided to us in this article. We urge everyone to read the article because comments made by Trustee Maripat Oliver during last night's meeting refer to it, however, she does so in a fashion that is false and very misleading. The video of her comments is found below.
We will take her statements one by one and explain why she is wrong and should resign.
- "An article from the ECWd talking about an affidavit and about when the township contracted with Call One."
Nothing in the article talks about when the township contracted with Call One. What was talked about is the fact there is a criminal investigation going on and because of that, there was an affidavit produced. We produced the affidavit in the article. Within the affidavit, the person claims certain things about the former Supervisor Bill Mayer as it relates to Call One. Specifically, the affidavit claims Call One was one of Bill Mayer's first accounts that he signed up after starting working for Call One. From that, she makes numerous assumptions.
- "The affidavit has EVERYTHING blacked out"
That was a TOTAL lie!
One only need to click this link to see that EVERYTHING was not blacked out.
- "I question when people don't want to say who they are".
It would do her well to read the very article that she is trying to dispute. The reason for the redaction was clearly spelled out in the article.
"We have redacted key information to protect the person who provided the affidavit. The authorities have the unredacted version."
What Oliver fails to understand is the very reason people are reluctant to come forward is because of the retribution that results from it. Rather than focusing on the message the tactic is to discredit the messenger. I could care less who signed the affidavit. What I care about is whether or not the information within the affidavit can be validated or not. If it can't be validated, then I want to know who wrote false information.
- "The authorities will also give it to you blacked out"
While they may provide it with redactions, we suspect they won't even provide a redacted version considering it is part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
- "I would be curious if the authorities really have it"
So first she says the authorities will also give it to you blacked out then she spins 180 degrees and questions if the authorities really have it? Which is it, they will give it to you blacked out or they don't have it?
She must not be too curious because rather than submitting an FOIA herself, she suggests others do it. We will FOIA the Bolingbrook Police and we believe the response will be either it gets provided with the same redactions as the one we published or as follows:
Your request is denied as the requested records are exempt under 7(1)(d)(i) and 7(1)(d)(iv)
(d) Records in the possession of any public body created in the course of administrative enforcement proceedings, and any law enforcement or correctional agency for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure would:
(i) interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings conducted by any law enforcement or correctional agency that is the recipient of the request;
(iv) unavoidably disclose the identity of a confidential source, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source, or persons who file complaints with or provide information to administrative, investigative, law enforcement, or penal agencies; except that the identities of witnesses to traffic accidents, traffic accident reports, and rescue reports shall be provided by agencies of local government, except when disclosure would interfere with an active criminal investigation conducted by the agency that is the recipient of the request;
What is so sad in this particular matter is Oliver's focus has nothing to do about accountability or disproving violations of the law but rather an attempt to defend and possibly cover up what really went on during the many years of malfeasance of the former Supervisor Bill Mayer. What will she say when they claim an exemption to the document? If they do that it is an admission the document exists, not that such an admission is needed because we already know it exists and is in their possession.
- "We know, from several people who come into this meeting and said, that Bill Mayer started on September of 2008. So we know in 2008, Bill Mayer started at Call One."
She claims to know something and implies it to be fact yet her own words make it clear, she only knows or is expressing what others who come to the meetings have stated.
That is called hearsay, Trustee Oliver.
The truth of the matter is she once again spread misinformation in her attempt to discredit what we published and once again has failed miserably. While we do not know the very first day or even month that Bill Mayer started with Call One, we do know what Bill Mayer reported on his Statement of Economic Interest in 2010 that he was a Sales Executive with Call One. He signed that document under oath. We also know what an affidavit states that was also a sworn statement. It points to him starting working for Call One on or around September of 2008. So who do we believe? Oliver who "knows" he started in 2008 because people came to meetings and stated as much or BIll Mayor who first reported his ties to Call one in 2010, or an affidavit by a person that appears to have information not found in the "public" record? Regardless of which is true, Oliver does not "know" anything more than what someone told her. If she did she would have laid that paperwork out on the table for all to see as a badge of honor. The important point with this, when he started with Call One is not the point of our article.
- "DuPage Township became a Call One Client on 10/19/2002" (according to an email she read from)
What Oliver fails to point out are the questions raised from the email. Who owned Total Telecommunications Technologies (TTT)? We have found no record of a legal business corporation in the Illinois Secretary of State database for that name. If it was a sole proprietor rather than a corporation it would be nice to have the actual paperwork reflecting who signed the Township up for these phone services. Why was the Township going with a phone provider that was not even incorporated? Why is the Township unable to produce any such record or contract with that distributor? While we know Mayer had an interest in Wrangler Inc., a company his wife formed and failed to disclose on her bankruptcy, we do not know who actually owns the company referenced in the email (TTT), who according to Call One, had the Township as a client.
- "If you FOIA them you will see there is a discrepancy"
Most interesting is the fact she fails to point out what this claimed discrepancy is?
If her allegation is to dispute the affidavit it might help to have actual evidence that disputes it other than hearsay. It appears she is trying to imply Bill Mayor could not have signed up Call One as a client because according to Call One, a distributor did that in 2002. Considering the article she is trying to impute was not focused on who did or did not sign up the Township with Call One it seems all she has done is grandstand to sound important and done nothing but created more questions.
- Who owns TTT?
- Did Bill Mayer have any interest in TTT?
- Where is the contract with TTT for phone services?
- Who signed it?
- Why doesn't the Township have it?
- What salesperson was the TTT account assigned to at Call one in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, etc?
- Was the Call One account ever transferred to Bill Mayer?
- Is it possible that the account was assigned to Bill Mayer in 2009?
Many may not realize it but all this was going to be cleared up a year ago when then-Supervisor Bill Mayer assured everyone at the meeting he would provide an affidavit on the Call One matter. To date, no such affidavit has ever been produced. Considering Mayer's own documents disclose a conflict, covered in this article, we're really not sure what actual point Oliver is trying to make.
As you will see in the video, Oliver might consider a career in show business as she does play the role of actress rather well. What do we know about show business? Not much other than it's fake, much like Trustee Maripat Oliver's attempt at implying she has any real interest in transparency and doing what is right.
Once we get a response back from the Police to our FOIA we will publish it.
Enjoy the show below and stay tuned for the update.