FRANKLIN/WHITE COs.—Dangerous case law may have been set by an irrational and irresponsible judge in a Franklin County Order of Protection case.
The situation arose after an Enfield woman, Kendra Carter, issued concerns to a board supported in part by public funds about one of their employees, Tina Gaither Casillas, a woman who is also paid in part by public funds, which makes her a public official and thus open to criticism about the performance of her job.
Following the concerns, issued in the form of Facebook messages or other electronic communication, Casillas, who lives in Franklin County, took out a Stalking/No-Contact Order (OP) against Carter, based solely in the exchange of information Carter began with board members, many of whom she was familiar with, as she has been a fundraiser for CASA, the victim’s advocate group for which Casillas works (CASA stands for Court Appointed Special Advocates, a group formed in 1985 to be a voice for children who are victims of crimes; it is a national group supported by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and is funded not only on tax dollars in the form of grants, but by fundraisers/donations).
On August 5, the OP was granted Casillas on a technicality…something that never should have gotten past the “emergency” order status it was given when it was filed July 16, as the communication between Carter and the board was limited strictly to on-the-record performance, as well as a documented court case.
That court case, however, is the crux of the matter: It was that of David Casillas, 28, of White County, who was charged last year with a child sex assault count after his young stepdaughter went to an aunt and informed her that Casillas was molesting her.
Casillas was arrested and spent eight months in jail awaiting trial, which he won, largely because he refused to be interviewed by the investigator in the case, Rick White.
During the course of that trial, Tina Casillas, his stepmother, was caught lying under oath on his behalf.
It was this action, as well as a 35-page DCFS report which indicated that David Casillas was a “high-risk threat” for child sexual abuse, that prompted Carter to issue her concerns to the CASA board, as a citizen and as a long-time fundraiser for the group.
And yet judge Melissa Morgan (formerly Drew), despite the fact that the OP was filed improperly by Tina Casillas and despite the fact that Carter has a First Amendment right to have taken her concerns up the chain of command through CASA as she did, granted the onerous OP…setting the stage for others who have a complaint against a public official to be stifled in their right to not only speak the truth freely, but to redress grievances with their government/government-supported entities, as Carter appropriately did.
Gave false testimony
on the stand
Jeffrey (David) Casillas’ trial commenced June 17 of this year.
During that trial, his stepmother took the stand, but not as a CASA worker, merely as a defense witness as called by Casillas’ defense attorney, Bryan Drew.
During testimony, it was elicited that the little girl, who was David Casillas’ stepdaughter and age 9 when the alleged sexual activity occurred, had told her aunt about the situation.
Tina Casillas testified that she was the first one the little girl’s aunt contacted; however, that wasn’t the case, according to records: The aunt actually contacted Rick White via Illinois State Police. Tina Casillas further testified that she, as a mandated reported, didn’t contact any authorities about the abuse allegations.
White County prosecutor Denton Aud caught Tina Casillas in this and hammered the point, but nothing further was done about the false information, including no charge of perjury filed.
As a result of this, Carter notified the CASA board in Franklin County about the case, and about Tina Casillas’ faux pas, stating that she was going to have to remove her support from the fundraising aspect she’d been a part of for so long, and issuing her opinion that Tina Casillas was “only for the child unless the child is not the victim of her son,” this opinion based on the DCFS finding, which Carter noted immediately following her opinion.
Carter did not communicate a threat to the board members as regards either Casillas, only expressed that she wasn’t interested in participating or fundraising for the program while Tina Casillas was involved…an opinion that she was within her rights to do.
Fraudulent pleas in petition
It was this communication with the CASA board members that Tina Casillas used as her request for the OP.
Franklin County court documents show that in her petition for OP, Tina Casillas stated that “via Facebook messages and postings…Kendra contacted my boss and program in June with claims that I need to be removed from my job due to my son. This has continued with her posting my picture, name and where I work claiming my son is a sexual offender. She has contacted board members as recently as today” (July 16, 2014).
“I have not responded to her and have not (had) contact with her,” Casillas admitted on court documents…which is of note, since one of the tenets of getting a Stalking/No-Contact order includes “any contact with the victim that is initiated or continued without the victim’s consent, or that is in disregard of the victim’s expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued.” Nowhere in the definition of legal terms is there addressed a portion that includes electronic messaging of a board of directors regarding a person’s employment. However, in the terms, it does clearly state that “Stalking does not include an exercise of the right to free speech…that is otherwise lawful.”
Invalid OP request from the outset
Further, in her petition, Tina Casillas included her stepson as a “protected person.”
According to Illinois law, a “protected person” under such an order means a child/minor, an elderly person, or a disabled adult who cannot in a court of law speak for himself due to a disabling mental or physical condition.
Jeffery David Casillas is undergoing a divorce from his wife Amanda right now; on his court paperwork filed in that case, it clearly states that he, under oath, is an adult resident of the state who is “under no disability,” as is standard on such proceedings…but which shows that he would be perfectly capable of filing his own OP if he so desired one.
It also invalidates Tina Casillas’ request for her own Stalking/No-Contact Order.
Associate judge Tom Dinn was the one who signed the emergency order. Dinn should right away have seen through the two factors that invalidated the request—the inclusion of David Casillas as a protected person, and the fact that Tina Casillas is a public person with a public job open to scrutiny by those who help fund her paycheck—but he did not.
Further, judge Melissa Morgan (formerly Drew, as she was at one time married to David Casillas’ attorney Bryan Drew) should also have seen such a problem with the order…but she did not.
Witnesses at the August 5 plenary hearing for the OP stated that Morgan (who has been an embarrassment to the Second Judicial Circuit since almost the day she was seated in 2006) was flippant and brusque from the stand when Carter came to file an entry of appearance and answer the OP.
Worse, though, was the fact that Morgan told Carter she was in default because she hadn’t filed a response and entry of appearance within seven days of the OP’s emergency order entry, despite Carter’s protestations that that was not the direction she’d been given when she talked to the people in the circuit clerk’s office.
Morgan, witnesses in the courtroom say, was churlish toward Carter and made “immature facial expressions and hand gestures throughout Carter’s and everyone else’s court appearances.”
Morgan has painted a target on the backs of media
Morgan signed off on the OP, and Carter, a person who did not stalk, threaten, harass or otherwise bother Tina Casillas, but only expressed an opinion to a publicly-funded body, now has the order against her until this time next year.
Disclosure was able to contact Carter, but she stated that she did not want to be in violation of the order, and so would not comment on the case at all.
Attempts to contact Casillas were unsuccessful.
The greater damage in the case, however, isn’t necessarily what it means for Carter…but what it means for a petulant publicly-funded person who doesn’t like it that she is being criticized.
As with the fraudulent OP that family members of Disclosure Publisher Jack Howser attempted to perpetrate against him and against the publication, the greater implication is that a First Amendment right to free speech and criticism of taxpayer-supported bodies and individuals has now been impinged upon…and case law has been set.
Against the better judgment of this publication’s owners, Disclosure is compelled to point out that once just one instance of such abridgment has been entered into a court record, others can use the case to follow suit.
This could include Tina Casillas, or any other public employee, attempting to file something against Disclosure for writing something that “causes emotional distress,” using the state’s arbitrary Stalking/No-Contact Order to pursue the claim.
Morgan stated from the bench that “because Tina Casillas isn’t an elected official,” the “public official” designator doesn’t apply.
That statement is not true. Any person who is employed by or even volunteers in any capacity at an agency that receives public funds (grants) in any amount, no matter how small, is under the First Amendment considered publicly-funded, and as such, a “public person,” open to criticism of their job and especially of their behavior in a court proceeding (making false statements on the witness stand) under the most important amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Melissa Morgan, in her apparent ignorance of the law, has subverted that…and recourse will only come with the next such claim made under this irrational and irresponsible decision, which will have to be fought valiantly to overcome.