Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

July 21, 2024

Orland Park Police Officer James Grimmett commits forgery!

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On August 6, 2014


Officer James Grimmett with the Orland Park Police Department was the reporting officer for an alleged city ordinance disorderly conduct complaint and the record proves he lied on the report and fabricated information and used that fabrication as part of the reasoning to not enforce the law on an Orland Park Library employee.


(720 ILCS 5/17-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 17-3)
Sec. 17-3. Forgery.
(a) A person commits forgery when, with intent to defraud, he or she knowingly:
(1) makes a false document or alters any document to make it false and that document is apparently capable of defrauding another; or
(2) issues or delivers such document knowing it to have been thus made or altered; or
(3) possesses, with intent to issue or deliver, any such document knowing it to have been thus made or altered; or
(4) unlawfully uses the digital signature, as defined in the Financial Institutions Electronic Documents and Digital Signature Act, of another; or
(5) unlawfully uses the signature device of another to create an electronic signature of that other person, as those terms are defined in the Electronic Commerce Security Act.
(b) (Blank).
(c) A document apparently capable of defrauding another includes, but is not limited to, one by which any right, obligation or power with reference to any person or property may be created, transferred, altered or terminated. A document includes any record or electronic record as those terms are defined in the Electronic Commerce Security Act. For purposes of this Section, a document also includes a Universal Price Code Label or coin.
(c-5) For purposes of this Section, “false document” or “document that is false” includes, but is not limited to, a document whose contents are false in some material way, or that purports to have been made by another or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority.
(d) Sentence.
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), forgery is a Class 3 felony.
(2) Forgery is a Class 4 felony when only one Universal Price Code Label is forged.
(3) Forgery is a Class A misdemeanor when an academic degree or coin is forged.
(e) It is not a violation of this Section if a false academic degree explicitly states “for novelty purposes only”.
(Source: P.A. 96-1551, eff. 7-1-11; 97-231, eff. 1-1-12; 97-1109, eff. 1-1-13.)

The police report clearly is a false document whose contents are false in some material way.  The material way in this case is the officer’s claim regarding my actions on the day of the event.

For starters, this officer has NEVER spoken with me, nor will he return my messages for him to contact me.  The purpose of those messages was to address this very issue.  His refusal to communicate with me speaks volumes!

He claimed: “Allen had located Jennings vehicle ahead of time and positioned himself in such a manner as to shoot video of Bittman leaving.” (Click here for copy of the specific page in question)

This police officer should be fired immediately for falsifying a police report with that statement.  His actions constitute Forgery under Illinois law.

Had this officer done one shred of investigative work and called me, he would have learned the following information.

  • We arrived approximately an hour before Jennings
  • I did not position my vehicle in such a manner as to shoot any video of Bittman leaving based on the fact I arrived well before them! I simply parked in the closest spot to the doors and went inside.
  • I had no knowledge of what kind of a vehicle these people drove.

Those three key points substantiate this officer violated the law and fabricated information on a police report.  Having arrived well in advance of the person in question coupled with the fact we were inside the building when the person in question arrived, it would be impossible for me to have done what the officer claimed.  The fact that I did video means nothing.  The reason I video taped it from my vehicle, instead of the sidewalk as the others did, was because I had gone to my truck to start it and cool it off before we left.  I was sitting there waiting on John Kraft who was talking with two other people on the sidewalk.  It was during that brief period that the people in question came out of the building.

I started to video tape them walking towards John and the two he was speaking with.  I had no clue where they parked but it turns out they were parked a couple spots over and across from me.

Regardless, there are multiple witnesses that know for a fact these people arrived well after we were inside the building making the officer’s claim entirely false.

It is a sad day in this country when police officers, who took an oath to uphold the law, intentionally fabricate information on official documents.  It is a criminal act and he should be prosecuted for it.

People of Orland Park may I suggest you get on your knees and start praying and when done with those prayers, get off your rumps and take back your local government.  Go to your local meetings and demand accountability to the law.  Failure to act is acceptance of the wrongs being committed by your public officials.  Wrongs that include the allowing of Child Pornography to be accessed at your public library and covered up by those in charge.

[gview file=”” save=”1″]

(Click here for previous article)



Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • SafeLibraries
    Posted at 21:39h, 06 August Reply

    I don’t even get the Officer’s logical thinking. The complaint is for an assault based in part on the gay slurs. The woman comes out of the library, speaks with people she was with including an elected official/library trustee making loud, negative comments about Kevin, and makes a bee line for Kevin, asks him a passive aggressive question, and makes a gay slur about his blocking her way, all the while he hasn’t moved and hasn’t said a word. Obviously, gay “fruits” don’t have the same rights to the sidewalk as “quiet dignity” and her Comiskey family ties has.

    And he’s there in the first place to defend against a false claim she made against him for speaking up for my right of free speech, if I’m correct. So he’s only there as a result of her own malfeasance.

    Now along comes the Officer saying, because everything was prepositioned/planned and the camera was rolling, nothing to see here, move along. Even if it where true, which it is not, it doesn’t make sense. She still committed the assault and still made the homophobic statements. Prepositioning and rolling cameras are not exculpatory.

    As possible corroboration, while training librarians on behalf of the American Library Association that they should attack whistleblowers and Kevin in particular, Bittman made further antigay comments about Kevin. It’s a pattern of hate. And the elected official made anti-gay comments as well.

    So how does this police officer think that prepositioning oneself negates assault and homophobia? And it didn’t even happen that way–he had to make things up to justify dropping the charges.

    My opinion is that that right there is itself homophobia, when you make up excuses for someone who includes homophobia in an assault and write a knowingly false and illogical report that results in the dropping of assault charges for hate speech.

    As as to positioning yourselves to be in the perfect spot? What? Wouldn’t being right at the door be the perfect spot? And you are on the sidewalk in front of the building that you attended. Are you expected to be somewhere else, perhaps away from the building? You leave a building to go to the parking lot — are you expected to make some kind of unusual detour to avoid being adjudged as having prepositioned yourselves to take a picture? You were far away from the front door. Bittman had to make a bee line to get to you. Wouldn’t better prepositioning have been to be right at the exit where Bittman came out so you could ambush her immediately and save her the need of making a bee line to you?

    By the way, bee don’t hate gays. So stop insulting the bees by saying she made a bee line. But there’s no reason she should get away with stinging Kevin just because Allen prepositioned himself, film was rolling, and the Officer used that as the excuse to write a report resulting in the dropping of charges.

    Oh, and the film running? Like Kevin doesn’t get attacked constantly with repeated, false claims and calls to police to intimidate him regarding his whistleblowing on the child porn in the library? Like there’s not a need to record the constant assaults flung his way?

    What pisses the Officer off the most is that the homophobic assault got caught on videotape, not that faked or forged claim that Allen propositioned himself or that Kevin had the camera running.

    Even if he had the camera running, and ESPECIALLY because they knew the camera was running, she STILL chose to confront and assault Kevin. She committed the assault, she said what she said, right before the camera. A camera running ahead of time has absolutely nothing to do with that, especially where the camera’s presence was KNOWN to Bittman via the loud protestations of Diane Jennings, he’s filming, hi dear, something like that.

    These people in Orland Park, in the library, the Village, the Police Department, work together to silence Megan and Kevin outing child porn in the public library by any means necessary. Just make it up if you have to. We know the library does that, and we know the library’s legal council does that, now we know the Orland Park Police does that too.

    And the Police Chief protected President Reagan? Did I get that right? And he allows his department to be used like this?




  • Mitch
    Posted at 22:44h, 06 August Reply

    I believe the officer.

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 22:46h, 06 August Reply

      Of course you do Mitch, I wouldn’t expect anything less from you…even when the video shows something completely different.

      • Mitch
        Posted at 08:11h, 07 August Reply

        The video supports the officer.

        • jmkraft
          Posted at 09:13h, 07 August Reply

          This is not a night club and you are not a comedian.

          • Mitch
            Posted at 16:41h, 07 August

            But I am correct. Also, he didn’t forge his signature.

          • jmkraft
            Posted at 17:03h, 07 August

            Your somewhat limited knowledge of what constitutes forgery is telling.

        • Kirk Allen
          Posted at 09:19h, 07 August Reply

          Mitch, NOTHING in the video supports his claim that I arrived early and sought out their vehicle to park strategically in order to film them. Its a complete fabrication and that is what my article is about. The officer committed forgery on a police report!

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 08:45h, 07 August Reply

      Mitch, your statement only shows your ignorance. I challenge the police department to a lie detector. Hook me up and the officer and ask if ever spoke with me. Ask how he came to a conclusion that I planned on where to park. Facts don’t lie! I live over 200 miles away and have no clue what kind of car ANY of these people drive yet he expects us to believe I planned on where to park by seeking out a car that wasn’t even there when I arrived? The attorney for the Citizen Advocacy Group was present and I am sure she too could testify that we were there LONG before those two woman showed up.

      Mitch just know that ignorance is a sin when it becomes a preferred state of mind!

  • Kirk Allen
    Posted at 17:45h, 07 August Reply

    Mitch is yet another example of the problems in this country. A clear inability to read and comprehend. No where in the article was any claim made that the officer forged a signature yet Mitch references this. Its a sad day in this country when a bolded state statute pointing to the very violations can’t be comprehended by a common person.

Post A Comment