By Hicks News Investigative Unit – May 2025

In the orchestrated courtroom drama that produced a wrongful workplace protection order against journalist Jamie Hicks, one man played a supporting role with oversized influence: Kevin Fay, Public Works Director for the City of LaSalle.

Testifying on March 21, 2024, Fay presented himself as an eyewitness to the alleged threat that triggered the City’s petition against Hicks. But a close reading of the transcript reveals something different: Fay did not hear the threat himself, embellished key details, and admitted his version came directly from Finance Director John Duncan—after the fact.

“Did I hear that specifically? No.” (R76)
“I’m not saying Jamie said those exact words. That’s what I recall being told.” (R79)

This was not eyewitness testimony. This was a politically motivated reinforcement of Duncan’s version of events, offered by one of his own colleagues in City Hall.

Fay didn’t testify as a neutral observer. He is the City of LaSalle’s Public Works Director (R71). That places him squarely within the executive branch of city government—answering to the very officials who filed the order against Hicks.

And yet, the court accepted his testimony without raising the issue of bias or conflict of interest.

Fay testified that Hicks said:

“When I see you outside, I’m going to whip the fuck out of you.” (R75)

But when pressed, he admitted he never heard those words directly. Instead, he heard Jamie’s “tone” and “outburst” while seated in the same room.

“I was sitting down and I heard an outburst... I didn’t hear the actual words.” (R76)
“That’s what I recall being told.” (R79)

Despite this, the judge treated Fay’s recollection as corroboration—even though it was nothing more than recycled hearsay from Duncan himself.

Let’s be clear: this was not a private citizen coming forward out of concern. This was a City of LaSalle department head testifying in support of a petition filed by his own government employer, against a known political adversary of that government.

That is not evidence. That is institutional stacking of the record.

In contrast, Dawn Hicks, a member of the public, testified clearly and credibly that no threat occurred and that Jamie Hicks’ demeanor was not aggressive.

“Jamie did not make any threats... He did say something, but it was not in a threatening tone.” (R93)
“There were five sheriff’s officers in the room. Had there been anything threatening, they would have intervened.” (R94)

She sat in the same room. She had no political ties. And yet her direct, firsthand account was dismissed in favor of a department head’s admitted hearsay.

Despite Kevin Fay's admissions:

• That he didn't hear the words,

• That he was relying on Duncan’s account,

• That he worked for the City,

…the judge allowed his testimony to stand as corroboration.

And despite Dawn Hicks' clarity and credibility, the court gave her testimony virtually no weight.

This is not just bias. This is a staged confirmation process using government officials to lend fake legitimacy to an illegitimate order.

Kevin Fay wasn’t a witness. He was a mouthpiece for Duncan’s version of events, reciting lines after the fact, under oath, as a favor to the regime he serves.

The judge had every opportunity to throw out hearsay, to recognize the power imbalance, and to question why a City was using its own officials to stack a courtroom.

Instead, he let the machine run.

And Jamie Hicks lost months of First Amendment rights because of it.