If this is your first visit, feel free to
check out the Frequently Asked Questions by clicking this
LINK.
You are welcome as a guest, but you will have to REGISTER
before you can post messages.
To register, click the link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions.
If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
Just wondering here but if she was representing her base as a council woman at the time of when this happened, I suppose then it was ok for her to have been drinking while on the job? I would have to guess the city of Peoria has some statue against drinking while either working or working as a representative of the City.
I think this type of action by the City is horrible, they have now opened up the city to be added as part in this law suit and they withheld this decision until after the election. If she would have lost would the city represent her?
Would this be considered a frivolous lawsuit, what are the damages, hurt feelings?
Would this be considered a frivolous lawsuit, what are the damages, hurt feelings?
Poor babies....
The lawsuit is the culmination of months of harassment from the individuals cited in the lawsuit with a vendetta against BU students living on the west bluff. The lawsuit appears to be for the purpose of embarrasing Van Auken for her unprofessional actions and lack of remorse after the incident. Van Auken went so far to say that the BUPD aren't real cops and called the PPD, if thats not an abuse of power, I don't know what is. Also, the fraternity stated that all monies awarded will be donated to the Children's Hospital. I give kudos to the fraternity for being diplomatic about it instead of doing something stupid like vandalizing the properties.
Would this be considered a frivolous lawsuit, what are the damages, hurt feelings?
Poor babies....
Frivolous or not it is still a lawsuit. But, now that she has been reelected, why does the city now say they will defend her(pay) for defense? Again if that is the case and the city is now taking up her cause, do they also feel it is important to ignore the fact that she was drinking while she assumed the role of both representative of her base and her city? Is drinking on the job not a violation of the City of Peoria rules and regulations?
Seems to me the City is trying to push an agenda on the citizens of Peoria or more to the fact this councilwoman is demanding that her agenda and its cost is pushed to the tax payers of Peoria and specifically out of its pockets.
The timing of the Cities stance is extremely questionable and it needs to be examied as to why the announcement of this defense(payment) was announced after the election.
I am officially no longer going to be surprised by anything the city of Peoria does. If they decided to sit down and look at the evidence it is pretty clear that Van Auken has ZERO chance of escaping the charges with no ramifications. Video tape makes all of this pretty clear. If it shows she was on the property, seems pretyt cut and dry. Is the city going to pay her fine, too? Good to see the money generated from high taxes in Peoria county (that push business to EP, Washington, etc.) is being used to defend a City employee that was publicly intoxicated while representing her constituents and berated Illinois State Police officers that happen to work at Bradley. When will the citizens of Illinois learn? Just like the attorney quoted in the article...I won't hold my breath.
Comment