Regarding the Futterman lawsuit, to make it easier for everyone to see exactly what the facts were, in a blog post tomorrow, I will show several news excerpts from 2004, so people can make up their own mind about exactly how much responsibility, if any, John Walters bears for this lawsuit.

Don’t go patting yourself on the back so fast. Walters IS for illegals polluting Elgin because he will not do anything to stop them. What you permit, you promote.

He has hidden behind the “Federal issue only” skirt for years and has passively sat by and whined that ICE won’t get back to the city on their last request. That’s cowardly.

I ask you and anyone else: Would you wait 15 months for someone to call or write you back when you have asked for help? I wouldn’t UNLESS I was not into needing the help in the first place. How abnout a follow-up letter? A phone call? I know, John, how about a sign of life from YOU! Anything.

Another note: Walters declined to fill out the AFLA questionnaire YET attended their forum? WHY?

Walters has no vision for the future, no plans, no nothing. At a recent televised meeting before a council meeting he said in his official capacity, he was “pissed” at something.

“Pissed”?? Is that proper language for an official to use? What did his church friends say about that remark? Oh, Heaven forbid.

John Walters has done N-O-T-H-I-N-G positive for this city. In fact, not only did he vote against the Grand Victoria, he said years later, that he would STILL vote “NO” after knowing how much money the boat brought us.

Trust me, people see right through him at the forums. He has never said so many words in his role as a councilman as he is saying in this campaign. He is in real trouble because NOW he has solid competition.

Ed Schock and Bob Gilliam will miss him.

To me it sounds like a waffler having it both ways. Given the Futterman track record, a sound representative never would have indicated any interest in getting involved with them from the start.

“Your statement regarding Walters being on the side of illegal immigrants is absurd. It’s not a “with us or against us” kind of thing here.”

Oh? Another indication of Waffling Walters and his supporters wanting it both ways - with us and against us. And BTW, Dave, simply calling a position “absurd” doesn’t make it so nor does it show in any way how it is “inaccurate.”

“What is more relevant is the fact that interstate wine sales directly to consumers have only been legal since 2005″

Wrong. The Supreme Court’s decision held that states could not discriminate between in-state and out of state wineries in permitting direct shipments. Direct shipping existed in some states before the decision. The Court’s decision raised the potential to increase such shipments - or limit them - so long as the states did not discriminate.

So much for three out Dave’s four “easy inaccuracies.”

I don’t understand. They took away a liquor license temporarily? The club shut down? They took away some sort of tax incentives or breaks? What was supposed to happen during the 1-year period, or after that limit?

1) Neither Walters (nor the council) never voted to retain Futterman and Howard. On the contrary, Walters was the deciding vote in preventing the city from joining the lawsuit. From the Daily Herald, July 15 2004 (found at isbe.net):

“Councilman John Walters last week withdrew his support for the city paying Futterman and Howard up to $44,000 in pre-litigation costs. Four of six council members informally had supported hiring the law firm, and Walter’s change of heart meant the official vote set for Wednesday night’s city council meeting would have resulted in a rejection by tie.”

To me, that sounds a lot like someone who’s prone to thoughtful consideration.

2) My understanding is that the Anthony’s lawsuit went nowhere, meaning the city won the lawsuit. Moreover, the State (while ruling the commission was too harsh) imposed its own penalty on Anthony’s that involved the suspension of its license. It’s worth noting that this only happened after several fights, shootings, and the like occurred at establishment.

3) Your statement regarding Walters being on the side of illegal immigrants is absurd. It’s not a “with us or against us” kind of thing here. One can disagree with AFLA’s motives without being pro illegal immigration.

4) It sounds suspiciously like the author (RS or one of his friends) was the “someone” who wanted to start an internet wine business during the dot-com boom. Whoever it was, however, is irrelevant. What is more relevant is the fact that interstate wine sales directly to consumers have only been legal since 2005 (you’ll need to look up the Supreme Court case yourself). It’s hard to envision an internet wine business that could only ship to Illinois being particularly successful.

Offhand, I don’t know whether there are any more inaccuracies in the article. I’m inclined to think that there are, considering the 4 I spotted so easily.