DUNCAN ORDER OF PROTECTION STORY 

By Hicks News  | LaSalle, IL | May 2025

In a city already under scrutiny for its corrupt inner circle and retaliatory political tactics, the testimony of Finance Director John Duncan reads more like a poorly directed courtroom drama than a credible statement under oath. As Duncan took the stand in the City of LaSalle’s effort to justify a workplace order of protection against investigative journalist and whistleblower Jamie Hicks, what followed was an embarrassing, self-serving, and frequently contradictory performance that revealed far more about Duncan’s political motives than about any real threat to public safety.

Let’s begin with what Duncan didn’t do: he didn’t go to court security during the alleged incident on February 29, 2024. Instead, he sat in the back of the courtroom, surrounded by colleagues, and waited—choosing to text Police Chief Mike Smudzinski hours later (R41, R43). And despite claiming he was “very concerned” and “didn’t know what to do” (R40–R43), Duncan attended every meeting and public event thereafter, even appearing at a public mayoral debate where Hicks was a featured speaker. This is not the behavior of someone who fears for their safety—it’s the behavior of someone playing a part.

CONTRADICTORY CLAIMS AND CHANGING STORIES

Duncan testified that Hicks threatened to “whip the fuck out of [him]” at the Pollution Control Board hearing (R40), but when he first reported the incident to police, his exact words were that Hicks said he’d “kick [his] ass” (R45–R46). He later changed the wording in his affidavit and in court testimony, choosing the more inflammatory version—one better suited to the courtroom narrative of a frightened victim.

Yet Duncan also admitted: “I didn’t feel that [filing criminal charges] was up to me” and “I wasn’t sure how I wanted to proceed” (R48–R49), further reinforcing that this was never about actual danger—it was a slow-developing political maneuver coordinated with City Hall.

DUNCAN’S CLAIMS: THE NOOSE, THE FINGER, AND THE MICROPENIS

What truly defies belief, however, is Duncan’s laundry list of grievances supposedly driving his fear. According to his testimony:

Hicks allegedly said someone at City Hall would “end up in a noose” (R32, R65).

Hicks reportedly made a sarcastic comment about helping Mayor Grove cut off his wedding ring finger (R32).

Hicks once repeated a viewer’s livestream comment mocking Duncan’s genitalia, followed by a joke: “That’s just like micropenis” (R65).

Yes, you read that correctly: John Duncan told the court, under oath, that a livestream joke involving the word “micropenis” contributed to his emotional distress and fear for safety. He even cited this as part of his reasoning for supporting a government-issued order of protection.

This wasn’t a slur, a threat, or even original content—it was a Facebook comment made by someone else, repeated with a laugh during a public broadcast. But Duncan inflated it into a weaponized emotional grievance to sway the court (R65).

This is what we call the Baby Act: a performative, exaggerated attempt to claim victimhood, rooted in political retaliation—not legitimate fear. It’s the act of a man who touches another citizen during a meeting removal (R54–R55), lies about it, and then sobs about name-calling and livestream satire.

TOUCHING INCIDENT: WHO REALLY LAID HANDS ON WHOM?

Perhaps the most damning part of Duncan’s testimony is the February 5, 2024 incident—a meeting where Hicks was forcibly removed from City Hall after trying to speak about Carus Chemical’s emergency response failures. The removal was led by Police Chief Smudzinski, but video shown in court confirmed that Duncan placed his hand behind Hicks during the incident.

When asked directly under oath, Duncan first said he “didn’t think” he touched Hicks. Then he pivoted, saying he was “just trying to protect the plexiglass” from Hicks’ body (R54–R56). The court itself later noted that Duncan’s contact, if any, appeared “inadvertent” and “not intentional” (R62). But the fact remains: Duncan is the only one who physically laid a hand on someone—not the other way around.

PUBLIC MEETINGS, PUBLIC SPEECH — AND THE TRUE MOTIVE

Duncan’s entire justification for needing protection centers on Hicks attending public meetings—which he admits happened every two weeks, beginning after the Carus Chemical fire in January 2023 (R23–R24). Hicks, a frequent speaker at city council sessions, used his platform to expose environmental misconduct, TIF fund misuse, and suppression of FOIA records.

Duncan’s real issue? Hicks exercised his First Amendment right to criticize him and other city officials. Duncan admitted he didn’t start “fearing” Hicks until after February 5th, when Hicks directly confronted city leadership at a livestreamed meeting (R67–R68). In short: he didn’t fear Jamie Hicks until Hicks started making waves.

A LAWSUIT BUILT ON LIES

The City of LaSalle may have filed the order, but Duncan was its star witness. His words shaped the court’s decision, helping to silence a critic and set a chilling precedent for other whistleblowers. And he did it by playing the victim, milking hearsay, exaggerations, and a livestream “micropenis” joke into a full-scale courtroom performance.

This wasn’t about protection. It was about punishment.

The public deserves better than a finance director who cries foul when criticized, lies under oath, and helps weaponize the justice system to silence dissent.