College of DuPage (ECWd) –
Finally! We have been experimenting with new software, new computer setups for video, and are waiting on new camera(s), but in the meantime, enjoy these videos of us discussing the Breuder v. College of DuPage lawsuit and what we consider his attempt at squeezing more taxpayer money out of your pockets.
The background behind us is the meeting space after the Judge ordered the board into a larger space, the small meeting room with the “first-come-first-served” seating (LOL), and another shot of the larger meeting space.
Unfortunately, with the current 3-3 split on the board and uncertainty on the 7th trustee appointment, the “newest” majority could either continue fighting this suit as they rightfully should to protect the taxpayers, or they could simply bend over and cave-in like we are sure McGuire and Birt are working towards, and pay him everything he asked for – thinking they can continue to hide from the facts presented justifying the actions taken to fire him.
Below are parts 1, 2, and 3, with more on the way…
.
.
.
.
.
Please consider a donation.
[wp_eStore_donate id=1]
4 Comments
David
Posted at 18:40h, 04 JanuaryMr. Kraft & Mr. Allen – you two are doing the Lord’s work. The backdrop in Part 2 of the original meeting room paints a thousand words! Looks like most of the chairs are reserved. What – did that leave 5 open seats for the public? Brueder and Birt were clearly out to stifle any type of public participation. Common sense sense would dictate moving the meeting to a venue that would accommodate the public. Birt was the Board Chair so she certainly had the power to change the room. A belated kudo’s to your attorney Mr. Elliot for getting a successful injunction.
jmkraft
Posted at 19:47h, 04 Januaryand it was the same time they were signing documents and sending them to the Attorney General stating that all those seats were first come first served, and they were all open to anyone who wanted to sit there.
Jane D
Posted at 17:01h, 04 JanuaryCan you clarify…is Adam A. a defendant in the suit? Or is Brueder just citing him to prove his “emotional distress” or whatever garbage he is claiming? I can’t figure out what this lawsuit is for? Defamation? Emotional distress? What is he claiming? He got his feelings hurt?
jmkraft
Posted at 17:28h, 04 JanuaryAdam A. is not a defendant, Breuder included him for some reason to try and paint a picture that Hamilton and others were working in concert to dream up things to do to violate his rights…or something like that. We have several more videos to post and will clarify this in the last one.