By Hicks News Investigative Unit – May 2025

After hours of contradictory testimony, hearsay from political insiders, and dramatized outrage over Facebook comments, it was finally Jamie Hicks' turn to speak.

What unfolded in ROP pages 104–131 was not a man on trial—it was a whistleblower standing up to a courtroom rigged by political power, where Facebook satire was treated as criminal evidence, and truth was bulldozed by fragile egos and judicial complicity.

This wasn’t justice. This was character assassination by ordinance.

Opening Shots: Hicks Confronts the Court’s Corruption

From the outset, Hicks’ testimony drew a clear line between protected speech and the City’s vendetta. He explained how Finance Director John Duncan, the Mayor’s administration, and the courtroom itself had repeatedly misused the system to retaliate against him for speaking out on issues like Carus Chemical, environmental negligence, and misuse of public funds.

“I’ve had 13 sealed search warrants used against me. I’ve never been questioned, never charged.” (R107)

That’s not a criminal process—it’s a pattern of harassment. And Hicks made that clear.

On the “Micropenis” Debacle: The Court Criminalizes Satire

Yes, the infamous “micropenis” comment made it into a courtroom. But what really happened?

“Somebody in my comment thread said he had a micropenis. I laughed and said, ‘Sounds like a micropenis to me.’” (R113)

That’s it. That was the basis for Duncan’s emotional distress claim. A third-party joke, laughed at in a livestream, repeated by the court as though it were a slur delivered at knifepoint.

The judge should have ruled this out as irrelevant. Instead, he treated it like evidence.

“So I guess you didn’t think that was inappropriate?” the judge asked sarcastically. (R114)

The implication: Duncan’s ego was more important than Hicks’ First Amendment rights.

On the “Noose” Lie: A Fabricated Threat with No Proof

One of the most outrageous parts of the case was Duncan’s claim that Hicks had said someone at City Hall would “end up in a noose.”

“I never said I was going to put anybody in a noose... I said, metaphorically, you will hang yourselves by your own rope.” (R116)

That distinction matters. But the judge didn't care. Instead of asking whether the actual phrase was said—and by whom—the judge accepted the City’s twisted interpretation.

“There’s a big difference between saying someone will hang themselves by their own lies—and saying you are going to do it,” Hicks said, under oath. (R116)

No one proved the threat. No one even cited a recording. But the court took the City’s word for it, and ruled as though it were true.

Courtroom Theater: The Judge Plays for the City

Throughout Hicks’ testimony, the judge inserted himself not as a neutral arbiter—but as a hostile interrogator.

• Dismissing Hicks’ mention of sealed warrants. (R107)

• Smirking at his social media defense. (R114)

• Ignoring contradictions in Duncan’s story—while nitpicking Hicks' livestream jokes.

“If this was the standard, every journalist in the country would be in court,” Hicks said at one point, visibly frustrated. (R121)

But the judge wasn’t interested in journalistic standards. He was interested in protecting city officials from embarrassment.

What Hicks Proved on the Stand: This Was a Setup

Over the course of his testimony, Hicks documented:

• That Duncan changed his story between the police report and court (R106–107)

• That Duncan filed “for the record” first, then changed course and asked for charges (R108)

• That the court ignored other officials physically removing Hicks from City Hall while accusing him of threatening behavior (R110–112)

• That multiple livestreams were misquoted, misrepresented, or taken out of context by City employees—including the infamous “micropenis” moment (R113–114)

This wasn’t a pattern of violence. This was a pattern of politically motivated distortion.

Dawn Hicks, Again, Confirms the Truth

Dawn Hicks—who testified earlier—was cited again in this section. She was present. She heard the conversation. She said clearly, again, “There was no threat.” (R128)

Yet the court, like before, took the City’s side.

Conclusion: A Framed Journalist Takes the Stand While a Complicit Court Pretends Not to Hear

Jamie Hicks laid it out plainly: this order wasn’t about safety. It was about silencing dissent.

“I was in a public meeting, speaking publicly, and now I’m barred from public buildings. That’s fascism in a suit and tie.” (R129)

And that suit, in this case, sat behind the bench—granting orders on rumor, punishing satire, and enabling one of the most blatant abuses of the Workplace Violence Prevention Act in Illinois history.