Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

April 12, 2024

Jim Acklin lies about Sex Abuse cover-up of young girl –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On March 10, 2016

102nd – (ECWd) –

Candidate for State Rep, Jim Acklin, has taken to lying about his opponent(s) and using his own “cover-up” of sexual abuse of a young girl by a teacher, thru failure to report the abuse as a mandated reporter, to further his ambitions of becoming a state representative and siphoning even more taxpayer funds into his own pension pockets.

How sick is that? Ignoring his own failures and blaming his opponent.


2008 – Acklin and others were notified of an allegation of sex abuse, thru handholding, hugging, kissing, attempts to “shove his tongue in my mouth“, and illegally providing alcohol and drinking alcohol with female students.

2008 – Acklin failed to report the allegation to DCFS as the law requires

2012 – The teacher was charged with aggravated criminal sexual abuse.

It wasn’t until 2012 when Jim Acklin took any action, and it was FOUR YEARS too late, and only after law enforcement got involved…the damage had already been done.

How many other little girls became victims in those 4 years between notification and criminal charges?

Why was Acklin quoted as saying the young girl was partially to blame for the teacher’s actions?

Did Jim Acklin fail to report the allegations because he was friends with the accused teacher, whom Acklin and his son stood up in the teacher’s wedding party?

Is that how Acklin treats his friends and donators? “Sweep it under the rug“?

This article is simply to point out the Jim Acklin is blaming his opponent, who had NOTHING to do with the advertising by a PAC, nor by articles written by various news outlets, including ours.

Before Jim Acklin lies again: We are not financed by any candidate for office, any office holder, or any PAC – we receive funding thru our “Donate Now” button at the top-right hand side of this page, and thru the link at the bottom of this article.

When candidates Lie, we will do our best to expose it!

Please consider a donation to the Edgar County Watchdogs.
[wp_eStore_donate id=1]


Jim Acklin lying to Paris, IL. residents.



Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • Another Watchdog Watcher
    Posted at 13:58h, 10 March

    So who exposes it when YOU lie? Excuse me….misrepresent the facts.

    And from what I can find, you have not received funding any PAC(Liberty Principles)…but I have not stopped digging….but (MODERATOR DELETED THIS SENTENCE BECA– USE THE POSTER IS LYING AND HAS NO PROOF OF HIS STATEMET) PAC. In fact, he has been bought outright..

    Do you still have the sign in your front yard?

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 14:17h, 10 March

      YEs, I still have three signs in my yard from three people that asked. Nobody else asked.

      As for your continued attempts at saying Liberty Principles donated to the Halbrook campaign, you are wrong and could not provide proof the last time you mentioned it, but you keep on saying it thinkin people will believe you.

      The fact is that anyone can start a PAC and campaign for or against any candidate or proposition on the ballot – whether or not the particular candidate or proposition wants them to support or campaign against them or not. So a PAC spending money does not equal a donation.

      • Another Watchdog Watcher
        Posted at 14:58h, 10 March

        You are correct only in semantics….PAC Spending does not equal a donation but it must declare what it is spending it on. Liberty Principles PAC is campaigning for Brad. So are you telling me that Brad did not approve of the message?

        As for what you deleted above, I will follow your advice and follow the money.

        • jmkraft
          Posted at 17:11h, 10 March

          I guess you misunderstand about PACs and campaigning.
          PACs campaign for whatever mission the PAC is on. PACs do not (or at least are not supposed to) coordinate with candidate committees to get their approval or suggestions on anything.

        • Kirk Allen
          Posted at 22:42h, 10 March

          Liberty Principals PAC – “To make independent expenditures in support of liberty oriented policies and candidates”

          What part of that are you against so called “Another Watchdog Watcher”?

          • Another Watchdog Watcher
            Posted at 08:48h, 11 March

            No John, I have a good understanding of how they work. I oppose PAC’s in general. Just another way for special interest groups to funnel money to a candidate and also provide cover for the candidate.

            I dislike this particular PAC because of the parties that fund it. Primarily Gov Rauner and his Turnaround Illinois Super PAC whose goal is “support state legislative candidates who support Gov. Rauner’s bold and needed reforms, and to oppose those who stand in the way,”

            I guess my question to you Kirk is this….Why would you support such a fund? You want the people to have the power. To take back the power that is ours. These PACS dont promote that. They are Rauner’s way to gain complete control.

            I have no desire to trade Madigan’s group for Rauner’s. I would rather remove both and start all over but we all know that wont happen.