Judge says candidate stalked ex-girlfriend

David Earl Williams III

A judge in Washington, D.C., has issued a domestic violence civil protection order against a Republican candidate seeking to represent Evanston in Congress.

Judge Jennifer M. Anderson ruled after a hearing last month that David Earl Williams III stalked his former girlfriend, a DC-area activist on libertarian and conservative causes.

The judge ordered Williams to have no contact with the woman and further ordered him to take a court-supervised anger-management class, undergo a mental health assessment and submit to treatment if the assessment deemed it necessary.

She also ordered him to not contact the ex-girlfriend by email, text messaging or social media.

Among the allegations the 28-year-old woman made against Williams were that he had tried to have her fired from her job and kicked out of her school by impersonating her and spoofing her email address.

Williams says there's no truth to those claims and that he's appealing the judge's decision.

The woman's attorney, Kristin Eliason of the Network for Victim Recovery of DC, says it can take six to 18 months to get a final decision in such a case from an appeals court there.

Williams, 30, said in a telephone interview with Evanston Now that he met the woman at the Conservative Political Action Conference held in a Washington suburb last March.

He says she volunteered on his campaign when he was starting it up and that they'd had a "mainly long-distance relationship" before breaking up in October.

"I can't control what other people do and how they feel," Williams said.

He also claimed that Judge Anderson is a friend of his ex-girlfriend.

Williams, of 1055 W. Granville in Chicago, recently survived a challenge to his nominating petition signatures and will face Susanne Atanus of Niles in the March 18 primary.

Related story

Two Republicans vie for chance to challenge Schakowsky

Comments

Sabotage

This sounds like a case of campaign sabotage. And considering her past deceitful actions, there is a good chance that Jan Schakowsky might be involved. Whether she is or isn’t, this story has some strange elements:

- Williams’ name is smeared through the mud by an unnamed accuser. In these type of cases the accuser’s name is not hidden. Why is this case different.
- The accuser is a friend of the judge who rakes Williams over the coals. Usually the judge would recues herself. Why is this case different.
- I was unable to find any information about this case on the internet. Where did Bill get this story? Could it be a local political organization.
- Who has the most to gain by leaking this story?

These are just some of the questions that need to be answered before this story should be published because, whether true or not, the damage has been done.

 

Domestic violence

Hello, 'One Smart Guy' ...

1. As a general rule we don't name the alleged victim in domestic violence cases. We have a copy of the court order, which includes her name, but have chosen not to include the name in the story. 

2. Williams claims the accuser is a friend of the judge. That has not been proven.

3. We try to be first with the news whenever possible. It appears we are first with this story, which is why you haven't yet been able to find it elsewhere. You comment appears to suggest that we shouldn't publish a story until others have published it first. That's nonsense.

-- Bill

Congrats to this strong woman

Congrats to this strong woman for being brave and coming forward! To often victims are scared off, especially when they are being attacked by a person with perceived power. I hope the voters are able to learn more about this and the kind of person who is wanting to represent them. 

Anonymous

Bill,

I'm sure that you feel you did this story correctly and I know you must have had at least two reliable sources before publishing this story but I am also sure that you can tell us if you tried to contact Williams before posting this.

Also can you publish the names of your reliable sources. If you can not, I understand that is your right as a journalist.

After searching the internet top to bottom, Evanston Now is still the only hit.

Read the story

Hi,

Did you notice paragraph 8 of the story that reads: "Williams, 30, said in a telephone interview with Evanston Now that ..."

So, yes, I spoke with Williams before writing the story. Spoke to him twice actually. Also called his attorney, who hasn't returned my call.

Also spoke to the attorney for his ex-girlfriend.

And obtained a copy of the civil protection order from the court.

-- Bill

"OneSmartGuy"

OneSmartGuy,

1. "Judge Jennifer M. Anderson ruled after a hearing last month that David Earl Williams III stalked his former girlfriend" is not the same as a whisper/smear campaign by an unnamed accuser. The accuser is named in the court file and doesn't need to be named here for this story to be authentic.

2. The woman and the judge had never met before the case went to court.
 
3. Not everything is on the internet. Court records which haven't been sealed are generally public record and can easily be acquired by making a request to the court in question. All the author had to know is that there was a case to ask about. The first person who alerted the author to the case's existence is irrelevant. 

4. Sure, you could argue that a rival opponent has the most to gain by alerting Bill Smith to this story. But I could make the same case for any concerned citizen who is aware of the story who feels at the voters have a right to know about any actions by a candidate, such as the ones described in this article, that clearly appear to be a manifestation of major flaws in character and personal integrity - especially to the extent that they should disqualify one from serving in public office. In my humble opinion, any man who harrasses an ex-girlfriend falls into this category.

Hope that helps all your confusion! 

Nice information to have

How do you know all of this. Other than Bill's blog, I don't see any of this on the internet. I don't really care for Williams and really want to know more before the primary.

Abuse

It actually sounds like a case of  abuse more than a case of sabotage.

How are you more concerned about a candidate's campaign more than the allegation that he's a stalker who may be mentally ill? It would be an outrageous nearly impossible, and absolutely implausible conspiracy for this young woman to file a lawsuit and get THEN get granted a case based on evidence that would most likely have to include testimony from her employer corroborating her claims. It takes an insane amount of courage for a woman to fight against abuse in our judicial system, especially against public figures, so let's stop trying to falsify public sentiment to reflect political foul-play.

Dude's probably a creep.

Jan doesn't pay attention to this minor character

"This sounds like a case of campaign sabotage. And considering her past deceitful actions, there is a good chance that Jan Schakowsky might be involved. "

And why would Jan even bother with this latest bum of the month?   Even the well-funded clown Joel Pollak got pummeled by Jan in a terrible year for Democrats.  Jan will coast to re-election again this year.

Even if we buy your latest conspiracy theory, it seems like the person who has the most to gain from this is Ms. Whatshername....Davis' opponent in the Republican primary.

I don't think that Jan cares which of these two losers she runs against in November.

This is why Evanston's

This is why Evanston's nickname is the "Socialist Republic of Evanston".

And I agree with you, Jan did pummel Joel Pollak in the election evfen though he was a much superior candidate than her and pummeled and embarrassed her in their only debate. It is no wonder that Jan cancelled all future debates with Pollak.