Four inmates have died from COVID at East Moline Correctional Center

• Sarah Hayden , Robert Connelly
• Oct 27, 2020 Updated 39 min ago

Four inmates at the East Moline Correctional Center have died from COVID-19.

Sarah Hayden , Robert Connelly

Four inmates at the East Moline Correctional Center have died from COVID-19.

The fourth death, a man in his 50s, was Monday, according to Lindsey Hess, public information officer for the Illinois Department of Corrections.

As of Tuesday, 343 inmates and 33 staff have tested positive for coronavirus at the minimum-security prison, 100 Hillcrest Road, East Moline. Deaths are not being reported on the websites for the facility or IDOC.

Hess said no EMCC staff members had died. 

"East Moline Correctional Center activated its Incident Command Center and is using FEMA's national incident command system model to set and achieve aggressive objectives to respond to COVID-19," Hess said. "If an offender develops any symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 they are assumed to be at high risk for the disease, and pursuant to CDC and (Illinois Department of Public Health) guidelines, these individuals are isolated and tested.

"To manage outbreaks, the IDOC utilizes point prevalence testing in asymptomatic and potentially exposed offenders. Additionally, exposed asymptomatic offenders are quarantined and monitored for symptoms."

When employees arrive at the correctional facility, Hess said, they are screened, temperatures are checked and they are given personal protective equipment. The facility has an appointed safety officer whose responsibility is to ensure proper use of PPE, deep-cleaning routines, temperature checks and screening measures.

Olegario Banuelos, 45, is an inmate who tested positive at the East Moline facility in early September. He alleged correctional officers often kept their masks down around their chins and only pulled them up when a supervisor came around. He alleged on several occasions he witnessed correctional officers exit the COVID-19 unit adjacent to his and then enter his unit without changing PPE or washing hands.

Banuelos' fiancée, Lauren Hitchcock, said Tuesday that Banuelos has recovered and is back in his own cell.

All four deaths at EMCC have been in October and were men in their 50s, 60s and 70s.

Cody Dornes, an East Moline correctional officer and president of AFSCME Local 46, said the men died at area hospitals.

"Nobody wants to see anybody die. It's really unfortunate this is happening," Dornes said. "We've been taking better precautions at the facility. With the country reopening, these things are inevitable, not only in prisons, but in any communal-living environment. The majority of the prison is an open dormitory-style of living. There is only one housing unit that is a typical prison setup with two-man doors with doors that lock.

"That's why our facility has been hit as hard as it has been is because of the open environment."

According to Hess, there have been 29 inmate deaths from COVID-19 at Illinois prisons. Stateville Correctional Center, near Chicago, has had 13 inmates die; a man in his 50s was the first death on March 29. The next highest number of COVID-19 deaths has been at Robinson Correctional Center, where three of the five deaths were men in their 70s.

Hess said IDOC had taken measures to protect the health and safety of staff and inmates. Visitation at all correctional facilities was suspended March 14, and on March 20, the facilities were placed on administrative quarantine with restricted movement. Prisons with confirmed cases of COVID-19 are placed on medical quarantine.

PPE is provided to all staff, and KN95 masks are distributed weekly to all men and women in custody. Additionally, Hess said IDOC is working with Gov. JB Pritzker's office and the Prisoner Review Board to review inmates who are eligible for early release.

"Hand sanitizer, antibacterial soap and cleaning supplies are being made available to all staff and incarcerated individuals," Hess said. "We are closely monitoring our supply levels at each facility and are in close communication with our vendors to maintain adequate inventory. All staff are screened and temperature checked upon arrival to their correctional facility. All correctional facilities and transport vehicles are being routinely cleaned and disinfected.

"We are communicating regularly with staff and people in custody to ensure they feel safe," Hess said.

Jennifer Vollen-Katz, executive director of the John Howard Association, a prison watchdog group in Illinois, alleged staff could be the only way the virus was brought into prisons since outside visits were stopped in March.

"It’s deeply concerning that the protocols are not strict enough or the enforcement of the protocols aren’t strict enough to protect people in prisons from the behavior of people that can come and go from the prisons right now," she said.

Vollen-Katz alleges the main issue is compliance of staff wearing their masks when supervisors are not present.

"When the leadership isn’t in the prison with eyes on staff, they stop wearing their masks or wear them blow their chin," she said. "And (it) makes the people in prisons incredibly anxious because they understand these are people that come and go.

"The people in prison are powerless to enforce this kind of practice among guards."

Vollen-Katz said her organization continued to get calls, letters and emails from current inmates and family members about the state’s prison system. She said the John Howard Association planned to release comments from inmates that were collected during its COVID-19 survey earlier this year.

COVID-19 offender deaths

Field 1
Field 2
Field 3

Facility
Age
Date of Death

Stateville
50's
3/29/2020

Stateville
60's
4/3/2020

Stateville
60's
4/5/2020

Stateville
60's
4/7/2020

Stateville
70's
4/9/2020

Stateville
40's
4/13/2020

Stateville
50's
4/15/2020

Stateville
80's
4/18/2020

Stateville
50's
4/20/2020

Stateville
70's
4/21/2020

Stateville
60's
4/30/2020

Stateville
50's
5/3/2020

Pontiac
70's
5/20/2020

Stateville
60's
8/16/2020

Robinson
70's
9/18/2020

Jacksonville
50's
9/20/2020

Robinson
50's
9/23/2020

Robinson
70's
9/24/2020

Taylorville
40's
9/26/2020

Menard
70's
9/27/2020

Robinson
70's
9/27/2020

Taylorville
60's
10/1/2020

East Moline
60's
10/11/2020

East Moline
70's
10/14/2020

East Moline
60's
10/15/2020

Robinson
60's
10/16/2020

Pontiac
50's
10/20/2020

East Moline
50's
10/26/2020

Centralia
60's
10/26/2020

Above is from:  https://qctimes.com/news/local/four-inmates-have-died-from-covid-at-east-moline-correctional-center/article_330366c1-c1bc-501d-a05f-b83a5b0eb0d3.html#utm_source=qctimes.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fbreaking&utm_medium=PostUp&utm_content=47c18a370a6a122eb49503aabc2708b3790b0eab

Trump supporters come back to reality

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Register Star

I plead for Trump supporters to come back to reality

Here’s yet another election letter. I’ll start this by stating that I’m no liberal elitist. I was born and raised in a small town, hometown of Ronald Reagan in the Land of Lincoln. I’m politically independent and a proud American.

That said, I want to point out just how far the party of Lincoln and Reagan has fallen in the era of Trump. Republicans once supported our great military and especially soldiers that were prisoners of war, missing in action. Remember when Trump (a draft dodger) questioned John McCain’s heroism and patriotism? Remember when he said, “I prefer my heroes not get captured”?

In case you didn’t notice, he just insulted every POW. Republicans were once known as the party of family values. Remember when Trump bragged about grabbing women? Remember that? He just bragged about sexual assault. This isn’t a spin by the liberal media or “fake news,” either. We all heard it. These are words straight from the horse’s mouth. These examples barely scratch the surface.

I don’t really blame Trump, he’s just a buffoon and B-list reality TV star playing his part. I blame his supporters. He showed us exactly who he was. Anyone with an ounce of sense or a shred of dignity knew this man had no business being anywhere near the Oval Office.

I’m reminded of a quote from a truly wise American, Mark Twain: “It’s easier to fool someone than it is to get them to admit they’ve been fooled.” Please admit your mistake and come back to reality and decency. America is best when we work together.

Josh Price, Dixon

Page 10, Register Star, October 25, 2020.

October 27: 4000 New COVID 19 Cases in Illinois

Boone County Republican Officials gang up on school board

Great timing—as county reaches new infection numbers.

Above is from:  https://www.wifr.com/2020/10/26/syverson-sosnowski-send-letter-to-belvidere-school-district-supporting-in-person-instruction/

Boone County Health Department waded in with the following graphs.  They did not recommend a return to in person classes.  SEE:  https://www.boonecountyil.org/sites/default/files/images/file/10-26-2020%20School%20Metrics%2010_26_2020.pdf

Is this the answer to Chief Justice Barrett?

The Other Tool Democrats Have to Rein in the Supreme Court

By Kia Rahnama

,

Politico•October 26, 2020

The Other Tool Democrats Have to Rein in the Supreme Court

More

After the fast-tracked confirmation process of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Democrats have offered up a now-familiar solution to a court dominated by conservatives: packing the court if they win the White House and the Senate in 2020. The idea was famously endorsed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when his New Deal initiatives faced opposition from a conservative bench. In response, Roosevelt simply tried to add more liberal justices to the court, which would have paved the way for decisions more favorable to his administration. His court-packing bill ultimately failed in Congress, but today, the idea has resurfaced with new popularity among liberals—even if it remains unpopular among most Americans.

But there might be another way to block a hard, sudden swing to the right on the Supreme Court. Legal theorists largely agree that the Constitution actually allows Congress to restrict the Supreme Court’s authority to hear cases on a specific subject matter, such as abortion. Lawmakers have tried to use this power by passing legislation declaring certain topics off-limits for the court, but they have failed to rally the necessary majorities to pass those bills. Now, with what some see as a nakedly political play by Republicans to shape the ideology of the court, the American public and lawmakers might be more open to such a strategy, which might be a more palatable option to Americans for safeguarding precedent on issues like abortion.

The legislative maneuver could come in handy after the election. If Democrats keep control of the House and take over the Senate in November, they could be the first to put this little-known power of Congress to the test.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution lays out not only the structure of the Supreme Court but what cases the court has the authority to decide—in other words, the court’s “jurisdiction.” The Constitution also separates the court’s jurisdiction into two distinct categories. For some rare cases that are highly-sensitive to national interest, such as cases involving U.S. diplomats or disputes among the states, the parties involved can take the dispute directly to the Supreme Court, skipping all lower courts and benefiting from what is called the court’s “original jurisdiction.” For everything else, the Supreme Court is actually not given the power to decide the case on its own, but instead is granted only the power to review a lower’s court’s decision. This is what is referred to as the court’s “appellate review” jurisdiction.

-

Although the court’s original jurisdiction is clearly spelled out in this part of the Constitution, with a clear list of the limited types of cases the court can decide on its own, the text takes an indirect route to explain the court’s appellate jurisdiction. And this section also contains something known as the Exceptions Clause, which gives Congress the power to make exceptions to the court’s appellate jurisdiction. In the original text: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over certain classes of cases, such as abortion cases, would not mean that Americans would not have access to a judicial tribune for resolving cases. In the absence of Supreme Court jurisdiction over such cases, the final say on these issues would rest with the highest state courts or any of the 13 federal courts of appeal, each of which have jurisdiction over certain parts of the U.S. territory.

It is perhaps the strongest tool in the legislative arsenal that has not yet been used in American history and is fodder for many disputes among giants of the legal academy. If the Constitution gives Congress the power to make exceptions to the court’s appellate jurisdiction, can Congress pass a law to prevent the highest court from reviewing lower courts’ decisions on certain subject matters?

Not only has the legal academy leaned towards an affirmative answer, but Congress itself on several occasions has attempted to exercise this power. During the antebellum period, those in favor of state interposition or nullification—the belief that federal laws could not be imposed on the states without their consent—raised the idea of stripping the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over all state court decisions interpreting federal laws. The brash polemicist John C. Calhoun was a leading proponent of this argument. In 1827, Calhoun, then vice president, began lobbying congressional members to introduce legislation that would take away the Supreme Court’s power to review state courts’ decisions interpreting federal laws. Largely due to his efforts, the House Judiciary Committee in 1831 issued a report calling on Congress to do just that. Ultimately, those in favor of preserving the Supreme Court’s power over state courts were able to convince the House to not take up any such legislation.

In 1957, and at the height of the Second Red Scare, the Supreme Court was pitted against a staunchly anti-Communist Republican majority in Congress. The court, in a series of decisions, drastically limited the Republicans’ efforts to investigate and punish Communist sympathizers, e.g. by holding that government agencies could not discharge employees deemed to be disloyal, by preventing federal prosecutors from keeping relevant evidence hidden from the courts in criminal cases if such evidence implicated national security, and by greatly increasing the court’s purview over how congressional investigations were conducted.

In response, Senator William Jenner introduced legislation that would have stripped the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over such cases and others involving subversive activities. Despite the Senate’s serious consideration, the bill was ultimately defeated, to no small degree because then-President Dwight Eisenhower’s attorney general opposed its passage.

The next period of Court-Congress high drama arrived in 1964, when a congressional proposal aimed to remove the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over cases involving apportionment of representation in state legislative bodies. This time, Congress was reacting to the Supreme Court decisions in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims—two cases through which the court formally introduced the idea of “one person, one vote” and prevented states from apportioning seats in their state legislatures in a way that clearly discriminated against their Black population. The bill passed the House but was not taken up by the Senate.

The 1980s proved to be yet another highly contentious period in the court’s history, when a string of cases touching on sensitive social issues greatly increased public pressure on the court. As a result, up to 30 bills were introduced in Congress to strip the court of its jurisdiction on cases involving flag burning, school prayers, and abortion. But once again, legislative support for such bills faltered after Reagan’s attorney general at the time, William French Smith, wrote letters to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee communicating the DOJ’s hesitation on any legislation that would restrict Supreme Court review based on subject matter.

Although those letters played a big role in the bills’ ultimate demise, Reagan’s DOJ did not reach its final conclusion easily. In fact, in a bizarre twist, the current chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, who was serving as a special assistant to the Attorney General in 1981, was one of the main dissenters to the DOJ’s position. Roberts himself penned a memo for the department arguing in favor of Congress’ power to remove the court’s jurisdiction over certain subjects—reiterating the arguments advanced by many other conservative legal thinkers, including Antonin Scalia.

Even if such a law passes Congress, it could throw the U.S. system of checks and balances into chaos. It is still unclear what would happen if the Supreme Court itself is called upon to review the constitutionality of the law and finds it to be unconstitutional. Although many believe that Congress and the White House could simply ignore such a decision, the Supreme Court’s refusal to simply accede to a jurisdiction-stripping law would impose a tough test on the political branches.

Regardless of these residual ambiguities, jurisdiction-stripping has its advantages over court-packing. Packing the court would involve confirming new justices that upon confirmation would be subject to life tenure and protection against removal, subject only to impeachment for cause. This makes the court-packing decision rather difficult to reverse. Jurisdiction-stripping on, the other hand is achieved through normal legislative procedures, and can therefore be easily reversed should the voters decide to change the political makeup of Congress and the White House again. In this way, jurisdiction-stripping measures are far more responsive to the will of the electorate.

Despite these legal uncertainties, the main impediment to passing such laws has always been political and not legal. In all instances, the party in control of Congress ultimately faced a reluctant White House which, at the last minute, saw the political damage to the administration’s credibility as serious enough to dissuade them from working with their party in Congress to move jurisdiction-stripping legislation through. Today, though, many people could see the confirmation of Barrett and the sudden rightward shift of the court as an overtly political takeover, and thus might be more disposed to viewing jurisdiction-stripping legislation as an antidote to hostility rather than hostility itself.

If Democrats are in control of Congress after the 2020 election, it might all come down to whether the White House would stop them.

Free COVID 19 Tests in Boone County