Ted Glick statement about June 2, 2026 incident with Jenny Mundell

On June 2^nd, election day, Mayor Mundell posted a comment on Facebook. In it she said, “A few moments ago I was at a polling location where a man walked up to me, put physical hands on me, and made a rude comment. Why he thought this was okay, I cannot surmise, but it was wholly inappropriate.”

I agree that a man doing this, putting “physical hands” on a woman without her consent, is wrong and should not have been done.

I had an interaction with Ms. Mundell on June 2. Here is what happened:

I was on the sidewalk in front of Demarest School talking to and passing out literature to people coming there to vote. Sometime in mid-morning I saw Mundell walk up the sidewalk from the south to join three other members of the Mundell/Venezia team, two of whom had been there with me from about 6 am on. We were about 20-25 feet apart from each other.

At a certain point I saw a likely voter walking up the sidewalk on the other side of the Mundell group. I walked on the sidewalk to talk to and offer him literature. I had to go through the Mundell group to do so. As I passed through I put my left hand on Mundell’s shoulder for 1-2 seconds, saying something like, “Hi Jenny, how are you doing? You can call me MAGA.” I continued a short distance to meet the potential voter and offered him literature. I then turned around and walked back through the Mundell group to where I had left.

About 2-3 minutes later the police arrived, clearly contacted by one the Venezia/Mundell team. This grew to three police cars double-parked for about a half-hour while officers interviewed me and the Mundell team about what happened, and then they left.

I apologize to Jenny Mundell for putting my hand on her shoulder, even if briefly. It was a mistake on my part, and I regret it.

As far as what I said, particularly the “you can call me MAGA” sentence, that was a sarcastic response to Mundell stating in something she wrote about a week before the election that those of us supporting other candidates than her slate were “MAGA-light.”

Those were offensive words. Many of us who I work with in support of different candidates than the Venezia/Mundell team have been very active opposing MAGA and Trump policies since Trump took office. We are members of the Democratic Party who have different views on policy, and different views on how good leaders should function, than the Venezia/Mundell team.

Having stewed on her “MAGA-light” words since they were written a week or so before, my saying, “you can call me MAGA,” was clearly related to her offensive comment.

I am a person who supports womens’ leadership, in general, and opposes all forms of sexism. For me to have made this mistake is something I have been reflecting on since it happened and will continue to do so as I try, day by day, to live up to my beliefs and principles.

For immediate release, July 18, 2023

Contacts: Maury Johnson – 304.646-9285

                 Roberta Bondurant – 540.793.4769

Those Directly Affected by Degraded Coating on the MVP

Pipe Segments and Experts Will Rally at PHMSA

WHO: Residents along the right of way of the Mountain Valley Pipeline in WV and VA, and supporters

WHAT: Rally outside PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration)

WHERE: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C

WHEN: Thursday, July 20, at noon

WHY: The manufacturer of the coating on the pipe segments says it starts degrading after six months above ground, exposed to the elements, yet much of the pipe has been sitting along the right of way for five years.

VISUALS: pipeline, puppets, banners

SPEAKERS:

·       -Maury Johnson, an impacted WV landowner;

·       -Roberta “Bert” Bondurant, an advocate with Preserve Bent Mountain (VA),

·       -Bill Limpert, retired water pollution environmental regulator who has researched pipeline issue

Maury Johnson says, “The severely degraded MVP pipe that has been lying along the MVP Right of Way (ROW) – including on my family’s property – and in pipe storage yards for years beyond its manufacturer’s recommended expiration date is a risk to everyone who lives, works or plays near this pipe,” says Johnson. “It should never be used in ANY construction, either along the MVP ROW or elsewhere. It will put at peril hikers of the Appalachian Trail on Peters Mountain, boaters, rafters, fishermen and others who recreate near the rivers and streams in both WV and VA where it is used. It will put travelers at risk who traverse the many road and stream crossings where it has been or could possibly be used in the future.”

Roberta “Bert” Bondurant says, “MVP says that ‘safety is its priority…’ Yet it wants to use its corroding pipes with long degraded coating, thousands of which MVP rushed to sites in 2018, then left lying beside water body crossings, floating in trenches and sitting in standing water for extended periods—increasing threats of corrosion, explosion and fire for landowners and communities in its path. Complaining of spending excess time, money and inconvenience, MVP plans to perform lesser quality, patchwork, environmentally toxic pipe rehab on site—in proximity to drinking water sources. Best practice has shown that in-factory, climate controlled setting is the environmentally safest and most effective way to repair a massive stock of degraded pipe.”

“MVP assumed the risk, in its 2018 federal court testimony, for aggressively rushing its pipe to sites as early as 2018. Our agencies and public servants must prohibit MVP from forcing the increasingly more dangerous burdens of its big gambit upon landowners and communities.“

Bill Limpert has been digging into pipeline issues for the past ten years. “I believe that the Mountain Valley Pipeline, as currently constructed, is a significant threat to public safety,” he says. “Numerous safety upgrades must be made before the pipeline goes into operation. The MVP public safety risk is unacceptably high due to the following issues: MVP explosive potential, pipe coating deficiencies, cathodic protection deficiencies, numerous and ongoing landslides, MVP’s history of violations, weak regulations and enforcement, and failure of FERC and PHMSA to keep the public informed.” 

Judge Allows Testimony on Impacts of Climate Change and Role of Banks

But ultimately finds 11 Rocking Chair Rebels Guilty of Disorderly Conduct

In a trial that took place on November 12th, the last scheduled day of the COP 26 global climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, Judge Kerry Taylor allowed the 11 pro se defendants who last June sat in rocking chairs in the main thoroughfare in front of JP Morgan Chase Bank’s credit card headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, to submit testimony about the climate crisis and the role of banks in funding it.

Defendants pursued a “choice of evils” strategy, which under Delaware law allows someone to break the law to prevent a greater “imminent” harm.  The prosecutor, who was the arresting officer, kept asking defendants who took the witness stand how their blocking the road prevented “imminent” harm that would justify the inconvenience to motorists who were delayed for a short time. Defendants testified to the drastic “imminent” harms already occurring due to climate change, like the fact that on the day of the protest, temperatures reached 108 degrees in the Northwest, part of a several-day heat wave that killed 100 humans and a billion sea creatures.

Defendants submitted copies of the 50-page Summary of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, published in August, which confirms that it is indisputable that human influence has caused all the warming in the climate system that has occurred since pre-industrial times. They also submitted copies of the 2021 Banking on Climate Chaos, which shows that JP Morgan Chase is by far the biggest funder of fossil fuel projects around the world. Finally, they submitted a document in which the International Energy Agency declared that in order to avoid climate tipping points, funding for and construction of any new fossil fuel projects must cease this year.

Defendant Melinda Tuhus said, “Getting this documentation into the record was historic, as judges almost never allow a choice of evils defense – also known as a necessity defense. However, although the judge allowed defendants to testify on these matters, in the end she chose the narrow definition of ‘imminent harm’ and found us guilty of disorderly conduct and imposed fines and court costs of $97 on each of us.”

Defendant Steve Norris, a great-grandfather and one of the main organizers of the action, said, “Judge Kerry Taylor today at the last-minute stole defeat from the jaws of victory. She admitted into evidence the IPCC Report, Banking on Climate Chaos and the IEA Report. But then judge Taylor turned her back on us and seemed to claim that the drivers we inconvenienced in front of Chase Bank suffered greater harm than the millions of people who are suffering from climate change.”

Tony Ingraffea, professor emeritus of engineering at Cornell University and an expert on methane, the second most common greenhouse gas after CO2, testified in late September at a People’s Climate Tribunal outside the Wilmington courthouse. After the verdict on Friday he said, “Once again the judicial system, although capable in this case of expressing ‘sympathy’ for the defendants’ cause, is incapable of the righteousness needed in our collective climate emergency. The earth needs no sympathy. It deserves our apology and the righteous course of action that the defendants pursued in this case.”

Karen Igou, the youngest defendant at 51, wrote after the trial, “Today we could have made history. Today I watched 11 dear elders pour their hearts out after weeks of planning, researching, organizing. Today I listened to hours of testimony about the crimes against humanity committed by Chase Bank and the prognosis of our ailing planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants. Today I sang, held hands, wept, ate, prayed, and testified with elders who are wise beyond my years, have full and vibrant lives, yet still put them all on hold to try to protect our Earth. Today I witnessed police officers who in court seemed determined to undermine the efforts of those trying to save life on Earth, but who in the hallways whispered that we had their support. Today I watched a woman, a judge, meet eyes with comrades imploring that she get on board with those ready to cast aside convention and joyously protect and embrace life on Earth. I also watched that judge fall in line with the status quo and through a lack of creativity and courage, a desire to go by the book rather than write a new one, let herself disappear into nothingness rather than make history. But in the end the problem isn’t how the evidence was presented or if the wording was correct. It is the human condition of cognitive dissonance and the steadfast desire to continue on with life as we know it rather than life as it could be.”