September 29, 2026 | Freeport, IL
Presented by Sarah Collins
CRIME & PUNISHMENT | F4F NEWS
Until recently, Fighting4Freeport had little reason to spend its time investigating Desiree Ewinger. We weren't searching her court history. We weren't interested in her personal life. We weren't looking for a story about her.
Then Ewinger repeatedly made herself part of one.
As Fighting4Freeport continued investigating allegations involving Beloved Church Pastor Steve Cassell and girls across Northwest Illinois, Ewinger emerged as one of his most vocal public defenders in our comment sections. Again and again, she appeared ready to defend Cassell and attack those questioning his conduct.
That alone wouldn't have made her particularly interesting. Cassell is entitled to defenders. No matter how disgusting that may be. They are entitled to challenge our reporting, dispute our conclusions and present evidence they believe contradicts what girls and witnesses are saying.
But Ewinger's defense increasingly wasn't about evidence.
When Fighting4Freeport Chairman Joshua T. Atkinson continued reporting on allegations involving Cassell, Ewinger didn't produce documents contradicting the reporting or identify factual errors she believed we had made.
Instead, she attacked the reporter.
DESIREE EWINGER MADE HERSELF PART OF THIS STORY
“You are something else the way you judge others,” Ewinger wrote. She then added, “But it's expected from a fruit loop like you.”
She continued by defending Cassell, telling Atkinson, “You don't know this man at all,” and accusing him of having “no facts behind anything” he was saying.
“Fruit loop” wasn't a challenge to a document, interview or piece of evidence. In the context of her exchange with Atkinson, an openly gay man, Fighting4Freeport and the public viewed it as a homophobic insult used while Ewinger was defending Cassell against allegations concerning his physical interactions with little girls.
And it wasn't the last time Ewinger made Atkinson's sexuality part of the conversation.
Days later, she returned. “Accusations is what you love but there's not any investigations going on there are no indictments there are no arrests but you keep defaming a good man,” Ewinger wrote.
Then she offered her own explanation for why Atkinson continued investigating Cassell: “I don't think it's Steve I think it might be the crush that you have on Steve.”
Suddenly, a discussion that should have been about allegations involving the abuse of children had been redirected toward whether the gay man reporting on those allegations was sexually attracted to the man he was investigating.
Call it a distraction, an insult, a defense of Cassell or something else. Readers can decide what they believe Ewinger was trying to accomplish. What isn't subjective is what she actually wrote.
She publicly defended Cassell. She attacked the credibility and motives of the person investigating him. She invoked Atkinson's sexuality. And she pointed to the absence of arrests and indictments as part of her argument defending Cassell.
That is why Desiree Ewinger is the subject of this Crime & Punishment article.
Not because Fighting4Freeport woke up one morning interested in Desiree Ewinger. She repeatedly walked herself into a story that wasn't about her.
Once Ewinger decided to publicly lecture Fighting4Freeport about facts, credibility and judging others while defending Cassell, we decided to apply one very simple standard to her: Let's look at the facts.
So we did.
VIOLATING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION
In November 2006, a criminal misdemeanor case was filed against Desiree M. Ewinger in Stephenson County. Court records identify Ewinger as the defendant. The charge involved violating an order of protection.
The court history shows that Ewinger failed to appear on December 4, 2006, and a bench warrant was ordered. The docket later records that the warrant was executed.
On June 13, 2007, Ewinger appeared with an attorney. According to the docket, she entered a plea to Count 1. Her rights were explained, the State provided a factual basis, Ewinger stipulated to that factual basis, and the court accepted her guilty plea. She was sentenced to one year of court supervision, while Count 2 was dismissed.
That wording matters. Fighting4Freeport isn't going to inflate the record and call something a traditional judgment of conviction when the court imposed supervision. The record says Ewinger entered a guilty plea, the court accepted that plea and she received court supervision.
That's what we're reporting. But there is considerably more to what happened afterward.
DRUG TREATMENT, ALCOHOL TREATMENT AND RANDOM DRUG TESTING
The disposition information provided to Fighting4Freeport associated with Ewinger's supervision lists drug treatment and alcohol treatment among the conditions.
That deserves attention, but it also requires precision. Those records do not establish that Ewinger was a drug addict. Fighting4Freeport isn't qualified to diagnose addiction from a court record. What the records establish is what we will report: drug treatment, alcohol treatment and, later, random drug testing ordered by the court.
In December 2007, a petition to revoke Ewinger's court supervision was filed. On February 15, 2008, the docket says Ewinger appeared in court with the State and a probation officer present. A petition pertaining to mental-health treatment was dismissed, but the court ordered Ewinger to submit to random drug testing.
A supplemental petition followed in March. On May 23, Ewinger appeared with a public defender and, according to the docket, admitted to the March 20 petition. The court extended her supervision for another six months.
By August, the State moved to dismiss the remaining petition, and Ewinger continued on supervision. On January 9, 2009, the court entered a discharge from court supervision.
Fighting4Freeport doesn't have to embellish any of that. The record gives us plenty to report: a guilty plea accepted by the court, drug treatment, alcohol treatment, a petition to revoke supervision, court-ordered random drug testing, a supplemental petition, an admission to that petition, another six months of supervision and, eventually, discharge from supervision.
There is perhaps no better demonstration of the difference between evidence and assumption than the drug issue itself.
Fighting4Freeport could take references to drug treatment and random drug testing, make an inference and attach a much more damaging label to Ewinger.
We won't. We don’t need to. Facts are facts.
The records we've reviewed do not establish that she is or was a drug addict. They establish treatment and testing. So treatment and testing are what we're reporting.
That's what giving someone the benefit of the evidence looks like.
We only wish Ewinger demonstrated the same caution before attacking the people investigating allegations involving girls.
CIVIL COURT BROUGHT MORE PROBLEMS
While the criminal matter was still unfolding, Ewinger was also involved in significant civil litigation.
In February 2007, litigation involving All American Escrow & Title Service was filed in Stephenson County. The case included claims involving injunctive relief, conversion, replevin, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Defendants subsequently filed answers, affirmative defenses and counterclaims.
That requires another important clarification. A complaint containing allegations of fraud, conversion or any other wrongdoing does not prove those allegations are true. Fighting4Freeport will not report allegations as findings merely because someone put them in a lawsuit.
But the subsequent court proceedings are part of the record.
On November 19, 2007, the court entered default against Ewinger on four counterclaims. During a December prove-up hearing, default judgments were entered for counterplaintiffs, including $2,750 for Reed and $5,000 for Donovan.
The litigation continued. In April 2008, Ewinger appeared while an attorney representing several defendants pursued summary judgment. According to the docket, testimony was given, evidence was entered, arguments were heard and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted. In June, Ewinger appeared pro se and the remaining case against another defendant was dismissed without prejudice.
Those aren't Facebook rumors. They're court records.
THEN CAME FORECLOSURE
Ewinger's public court history also includes a 2008 foreclosure case.
Court records show a judgment of foreclosure was entered on May 11, 2009. The matter ultimately proceeded to a sheriff's sale, and on October 13, 2009, the court found the sale proper and confirmed it, directed the sheriff to issue the deed and entered judgment against Ewinger.
We're not going to make more of that than it is.
A foreclosure does not establish someone's character. People experience financial crises for countless reasons. Family hardship, divorce, illness, addiction, loss of employment etc etc., and Fighting4Freeport has no intention of pretending a foreclosure proves someone is a bad person.
THERE ARE OTHER RECORDS — AND HERE IS WHERE WE STOP
Ewinger's court history contains other matters. Fighting4Freeport could fill this article with every case number bearing her name.
We aren't going to do that.
There is, however, one recent proceeding worth mentioning precisely because of what we will not say about it.
Court records show a guardianship proceeding beginning in 2024 and continuing into 2025. The docket reflects guardianship petitions and subsequent proceedings concerning temporary and permanent guardianship.
And that's as far as we're going.
Could we throw the word “guardianship” onto Facebook, surround it with insinuations and allow readers to imagine the worst?
Absolutely.
We won't.
The docket establishes that a guardianship proceeding occurred. It does not, based on the records we've reviewed, establish enough for Fighting4Freeport to responsibly tell readers what happened inside that family, why the guardianship became necessary or what conclusions should be drawn about Ewinger's ability to care for another person.
Those are enormously different things.
And that distinction is particularly important in an article about someone who has repeatedly challenged allegations involving girls.
We expect allegations involving Cassell to be investigated based upon evidence. Desiree Ewinger gets the same standard.
If the evidence doesn't establish something, we don't get to manufacture the missing pieces simply because doing so would make a more damaging story.
That's journalism.
WHAT ABOUT THE GIRLS?
This brings us back to the reason Ewinger became relevant in the first place.
Fighting4Freeport has now extended considerable caution to Desiree Ewinger. We have public records referencing drug treatment and random drug testing, yet we refuse to label her a drug addict because the records don't establish that. We found a guardianship proceeding, yet we refuse to speculate about what happened inside her family because the docket doesn't tell us enough.
We have deliberately told readers what the evidence doesn't establish.
So where is that caution when the subject is the girls?
Ewinger's defense of Cassell has repeatedly returned to essentially the same argument: Where are the arrests? Where are the indictments? Where are the charges?
Those questions are fair to ask. Treating their absence as the end of the inquiry is something else entirely.
Journalists investigate allegations before criminal charges are filed. Police investigate before charges are filed. Prosecutors review evidence before determining whether charges should be filed. Sometimes charges are never filed.
The absence of charges does not establish that an allegation is true. It doesn't establish that an allegation is false either.
Fighting4Freeport has spent months talking to girls, mothers and witnesses, reviewing records, filing Freedom of Information Act requests and following leads concerning Cassell and others.
Ewinger is free to question that reporting. She is free to defend Cassell. She is free to demand evidence.
In fact, we welcome that standard.
We simply wish she would apply it consistently.
If Desiree Ewinger deserves the benefit of what the evidence actually establishes — and she does — then so do the girls.
DESIREE, PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO STAY IN YOUR OWN LANE
This is where Crime & Punishment could easily take the cheap road.
We could look at drug treatment in a court record and slap a label on Ewinger. We could take a guardianship case we don't fully understand and insinuate something about her family. We could take foreclosure and pretend financial hardship tells us what kind of human being she is.
We won't.
Because that would be irresponsible.
But we're not going to hide what the records actually establish either.
The court record shows a guilty plea accepted by a judge in a case involving violation of an order of protection. It shows court supervision. The disposition information provided to Fighting4Freeport lists drug treatment and alcohol treatment. The docket shows court-ordered random drug testing. It shows proceedings seeking to revoke her supervision and that Ewinger admitted to one of those petitions before her supervision was extended. Other records document civil judgments and foreclosure.
None of those things makes Desiree Ewinger irredeemable.
People make mistakes. People encounter the justice system. People are ordered into treatment. People experience financial catastrophe. People complete court supervision and move forward with their lives.
Society should allow them to do exactly that.
But perhaps experiences like those should also teach humility.
Before calling someone a “fruit loop,” perhaps remember how damaging careless labels can be.
Before suggesting that a man investigating allegations involving the abuse of little girls must secretly have a “crush” on the man they're accusing, perhaps ask yourself whether you're challenging the evidence or simply attacking the messenger.
Before lecturing everyone else about judgment, perhaps remember how carefully you would want strangers to distinguish between what your own history and record proves and what they merely assume from it.
And before dismissing allegations involving girls because nobody has been arrested or indicted, perhaps extend those girls at least the same consideration this article has extended to you.
THE RECORD CAN SPEAK FOR ITSELF
Desiree Ewinger told Fighting4Freeport, “You are something else the way you judge others.”
Perhaps she stumbled onto an important point.
We should be careful before judging anyone. We should distinguish allegations from findings, charges from convictions and court supervision from a traditional judgment of conviction. We should acknowledge when prosecutors dismiss charges. We should recognize when someone completes the supervision imposed by a court. And we should never manufacture wrongdoing simply because we dislike someone.
That's why this article doesn't call Desiree Ewinger a drug addict. The records we've reviewed don't establish that.
That's why we don't tell readers what happened inside her family based merely upon a guardianship docket and rumors throughout the region. We don't know.
That's why we aren't treating a foreclosure as evidence of bad character.
And that's why we're not declaring every allegation ever made against Ewinger true simply because it appeared in a court filing or on social media.
That's what responsible reporting looks like.
Fighting4Freeport isn't publishing Desiree Ewinger's history to tell readers they must dislike her. We're publishing relevant portions of it because Ewinger repeatedly presented herself in our public comment sections as a defender of Stephen Cassell while attacking the credibility and motives of those investigating allegations involving girls.
If she wants the public to consider her arguments, the public can also consider what those arguments actually are, how she has chosen to make them and what the record does — and does not — establish about the person making them.
Fighting4Freeport didn't set out to write about Desiree Ewinger.
She repeatedly walked herself into a story that wasn't about her.
Then she told us to stop judging people and look at the facts.
So we did.
We looked at her words.
We looked at the court record.
We told you what that record establishes.
And, just as importantly, we told you what it doesn't.
Now readers have something Ewinger claims to value very much:
The facts.
What they think of Desiree Ewinger after reading them is entirely up to them.
Investigative Reporting, Editing & Publication
Joshua T. Atkinson
Chairman | Fighting4Freeport