By Hicks News Investigative Unit – May 2025

When Circuit Judge Jason Helland signed the order of protection against Jamie Hicks, he didn’t just ignore the facts—he rewrote the law, cherry-picked testimony, and handed a public gag order to the very government officials who were being criticized.

His closing statement, delivered on the record, reads not like a neutral ruling—but like a prosecution brief for the City of LaSalle, crafted to shield Finance Director John Duncan from embarrassment and accountability.

Let’s break it down.

1. The Judge Used Emotion, Not Law

The statute—820 ILCS 275/130(b)—explicitly exempts protected First Amendment activity, including protest and public criticism. Yet Judge Helland’s response?

“That’s not an unlimited right.” (R149)

Then he proceeded to discredit Hicks’ defense by mocking his passion, citing his “demeanor,” and describing him as “highly agitated.” (R152)

In other words, Helland ruled not on what was said, but on how it made him feel.

2. He Pretended to Consider the Law—Then Ignored It Entirely

Even when Hicks’ attorney invoked the proper section of the statute (R141–R142), Judge Helland acknowledged it, then promptly tossed it aside. His ruling hinged entirely on the “reasonable belief” standard: that Duncan believed a threat might happen—even if no credible act occurred and the location wasn’t the workplace.

“It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t on City property.” (R151)
“It’s about planting the seed in someone’s mind.” (R152)

That’s not the law. That’s psychology. And it’s a dangerous precedent.

3. The Judge Dismissed Contradictory Evidence Outright

Multiple pieces of the case contradicted Duncan’s version of events:

• Duncan changed his alleged threat from “kick his ass” (R144) to “whoop his ass.”

• He filed a police report only “for the record,” then asked for charges the next day (R144).

• The alleged incident occurred in a courthouse, not his workplace (R145).

• Dawn Hicks testified no threat occurred, and there were five officers present (R94, R143).

Judge Helland’s response?

“I give no weight to that testimony.” (R151)
“The burden of proof was easily met.” (R153)

No legal rationale. Just raw dismissal.

4. He Used Hicks’ Livestreams and Facebook Tone as Evidence of Violence

The judge leaned heavily on Hicks’ online commentary—claiming he was “planting the seeds” of violence through “agitation” and “demeanor.” (R152)

He cited videos referring to a “noose,” despite Hicks’ clear explanation that it was a metaphor for political accountability.

“How is it relevant the size of any city employee’s penis?” he asked sarcastically. (R153)
Hicks replied: “That was not my comment, sir.”
The judge ignored it—and used it as proof of threat anyway.

This was courtroom theater, not jurisprudence.

5. The Judge Exposed His Own Bias On the Record

Helland admitted Hicks made him personally uncomfortable:

“The respondent was testifying within five feet of me... I’m feeling uncomfortable about it.” (R152)

That’s not a legal threshold. That’s bias. And it infected his entire ruling.

He even mocked Hicks mid-sentence:

“I wouldn’t have been giving the lion’s den up here with the laptop.” (R153)

A judge joking about how Hicks “made the case for him” by testifying? That’s not judicial neutrality—that’s prejudice confirmed.

6. He Ignored the City’s Political Motive Entirely

Nowhere in his ruling did Judge Helland acknowledge:

• That Mayor Jeff Grove’s sister, Jennifer Peters, supervises the Civil Division where this case was filed.

• That City Attorney Jim McPhedrin, working closely with city staff and the judge’s office, appeared in this case.

• That the City of LaSalle—not Duncan—filed the petition.

• That Hicks was being removed from meetings, denied access to documents, and shut out of public discourse.

Instead, Helland acted as though this were a cut-and-dried assault case. It wasn’t. It was a First Amendment silencing effort rubber-stamped by the judiciary.

Conclusion: The Judge Knew the Outcome Before the Gavel Dropped

Judge Helland opened the hearing saying he’d reviewed the statute. He closed it by distorting it. He treated public protest as threat. He elevated hearsay over fact. He took a Facebook comment section and turned it into a violent manifesto.

And worst of all?

He made clear—on the record—that he judged Jamie Hicks based on his volume, tone, and agitation, not on legal standards.

That’s not justice. That’s power protecting itself.