Mr. Bill Schelinski responds to the comments made below.

NOTE, AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT! I will not allow ANY comments on this thread (reference Mr. Schelinski from this time stamp) on) UNLESS you sign your name to your post. Mr. Schelinski has graciously agreed to answer the questions that have been placed "anonymously" below, and if you wish to respond you will grant him the courtesy of identifying yourself, or I will delete your post.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are very clear on this. He has the right under the fourth amendment to "confront his accuser," and that means you sign you post, or my I-phone, my I-pad, and yes the tower will light up and you will be gone, so now that we all know the rules, I give you Mr. Bill Schelinski.



"To Mr. Dan Hogan et. al. I can only answer what I know. I and my immediate family (which was my mother and sister, I wasn't married at the time) were there in the court house that day prepared to go to trial and you weren't. I don't know where you came up with your information on anyone beating anyone, but I do know there are no ambulance (EMT), police, or hospital reports that show any evidence of any kind of physical violence done on any person in this case. I do know that photographs were taken, but I was never allowed to see them. I'm also sorry that this is not a perfect world and you seem to think that justice is in fact blind. It isn't. The justice system doesn't always serve the right purpose. It makes deals, careers advance, and reputations rise. I believe that unless things have changed recently, that in the State of Illinois, County of Cook, that you can't just pull up a person's records. Cook County doesn't have anything like Casenet or whatever it is called here in Missouri. How did someone make any kind of connection with me in St. Louis today and Cook County Illinois almost 2 decades ago? It begs questions. Rather than fixate on my self-admitted past with your limited knowledge of it, I would look to the present.


The City of Crestwood presented me a "packet" of information that included amongst other things (a ward map for example) a legal "Notice & Affidavit for Persons Desiring to be a Candidate for Municipal Office." It was the first document given to me to read and sign. I read the requirements that are as follows: "No person shall be certified as a candidate for municipal office, nor shall such person's name appear on the ballot as a candidate for such office, who shall be in arrears for any unpaid city taxes or municipal user fees on the last day to file a declaration of candidacy for the office." Now please notice that there is NO MENTION OF ANY PAST CONVICTIONS. I even asked the clerk, "That's it?", and the answer was to the affirmative. This document was witnessed and notarized by the City Clerk. In addition, I was given a copy of a memo from Jeff Schlink, Mayor, and Office of the City Clerk that contains "Excerpts from the Crestwood Municipal Code:" Which includes Chapter 2 Article II Board of Alderman, Sec. 2-21. Qualifications. "No person shall be an alderman unless he is at least twenty-one (21) years of age, a citizen of the United States, an inhabitant and resident in the city for one (1) year next preceding his election, a qualified voter of the city and a resident of the ward from which elected for at least (90) days prior to the date of election. No person's name shall be placed upon the ballot who, at the time of filing for candidacy for alderman, is in the arrears for any city taxes. (Ord. No 10, [subsection or paragraph] 1, 8-23-49; Code 1965, [subsection or paragraph] 3.01; Ord. No. 1759, [subsection]1,10-9-77." Again please note there is NO MENTION of prior conviction.


Having read and signed a legal affidavit, and the above memo quoting the Municipal Code, why would I think that there would be any other language that would include requirements not stated in those documents? I know that there are city officials that have never even read the Charter. I wasn't trying to pull one over on anyone. There is a clear inconsistency between a legal document I signed, the Municipal Code and the Charter. Please explain that for me.


To address a separate matter, I have never come out and said that I am against the re-development of the mall property. On my website as well as quotes in the Call, and literature I have handed out, I have said we need to limit or eliminate the dependence on TIF, not once mentioning the "Mall" in particular. I have stated that it is not possible for the city to do its due diligence with a proposal from a developer that doesn't list ONE tenant for Phase I, and makes no mention of what it is going to do with Phase II. I am asking for the chance for anyone to be able to look at the proposal in an objective, measurable way, compare it to the viability and future revenues that will be forgone during the TIF period and ask how every other taxing authority is going to be able to survive without those future revenues from that property? They will come to us and try to tax us separately.

Last, I would strongly advise that language, accusations, interpretations, call it what you will, that I have read in various blogs about this matter that physical violence was used, that what I was charged with amounts to "attempted murder" might border on slander, defamation of character, character assassination and/or libel. The facts are, the facts were never tried in a court of law, or by a jury of my peers. Any evidence is hearsay evidence. I was never required to do jail time, was never required to attend any "Anger Management" counseling and my probation contained terms that had me do community service by shelving books in a public library. If I were in fact so dangerous does THAT make sense to you?"

"Signed,"

Bill Schelinski (via email.)


Tom Ford

NO. 2000