Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Recusal Thread


mauserme

Recommended Posts

On 3/14/2023 at 5:32 PM, steveTA84 said:

IL Supreme Court account hiding comments now....

 

Nothing says, "We are a court of law that upholds the US and State Constitutions" more than censorship...

 

I wonder how they would react to a FOIA request for evey reply they censored, hmm...

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^
 

so just because he’s Governor and that’s why he’s the defendant, (not a personal lawsuit against him) there is no conflict of interest with him and the two judges he bankrolled....while Governor from both his campaign account and PERSONAL trust....and to even think there’s an issue is “right wing” nonsense. Ok buddy, whatever you say 🤣🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 1:31 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

It to bad we can't get this "violation of ethics" more to a national level, wonder how old president pants hopeful would respond to that? 

See this is how a crooked presidential candidate would get things done? 

 

We can,  but it takes a campaign of sharing links on social media and emailing outlets the links too. It can happen with effort. I’ve already done everything I can do (which considering is what started this, and done just by using Google keyword searches  and looking at campaign finance data, is enough)

 

 

The IL Supreme Court’s Twitter account suppressing users who post about these conflicts on their account is just as big of a story btw. 

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 2:36 PM, steveTA84 said:

We can,  but it takes a campaign of sharing links on social media and emailing outlets the links too. It can happen with effort. I’ve already done everything I can do (which considering is what started this, and done just by using Google keyword searches  and looking at campaign finance data, is enough)

 

 

The IL Supreme Court’s Twitter account suppressing users who post about these conflicts on their account is just as big of a story btw. 

 

Mainstream media isn't covering it other than to show the first video of Jabba saying "nothing to see, move along move along, Jabba all good, Jabba no corruption."

 

The fix is in if they are censoring their own feeds.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 2:55 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Mainstream media isn't covering it other than to show the first video of Jabba saying "nothing to see, move along move along, Jabba all good, Jabba no corruption."

 

The fix is in if they are censoring their own feeds.
 

Federal action is what’s needed, but that ain’t gonna happen, as Jabba’s allies are in charge 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_83136180-c370-11ed-98ec-0f13a40bc608.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
 

The Center Square) – With state and federal cases challenging Illinois’ gun ban pending, Gov. J.B. Pritzker remains confident the law he signed will withstand constitutional scrutiny, though he says he’s not an expert. 

The governor also continues to respond to perceived conflicts of interest around his $2 million in donations to Illinois Supreme Court justice candidates who now sit on the bench. The high court accepted to hear the gun ban challenge from Macon County where the governor is a lead defendant. He signed the law Jan. 10. 

Pritzker said allegations there’s a conflict are false. 
 

“The truth of the matter is my name is on these suits because I am an official representative of the state of Illinois,” Pritzker said. 

Pritzker said the gun ban challenge, or the challenge to the Pretrial Fairness Act he also signed, don’t have anything to do specifically with him, he just so happens to be the governor. As to what he wanted from donating that much, he said he wants good people to get elected. 

“And, I must say that I think people who run for judge do it for the right reasons and I think that people who give to candidates for judge do it for the right reasons,” Pritzker said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 4:43 PM, steveTA84 said:

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_83136180-c370-11ed-98ec-0f13a40bc608.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
 

"....The truth of the matter is my name is on these suits because I am an official representative of the state of Illinois,” Pritzker said. 

Pritzker said the gun ban challenge, or the challenge to the Pretrial Fairness Act he also signed, don’t have anything to do specifically with him, he just so happens to be the governor. As to what he wanted from donating that much, he said he wants good people to get elected...."

 

The truth of the matter is that the laws in question....laws that the governor both championed and signed....are being challenged before the highest court in the state. On said court are seated two judges to whom the governor personally donated a million bucks each to help them get elected. Elected to sit on a court which would certainly judge cases with which he had an intense personal interest.

 

That's the truth of the matter.

Edited by springfield shooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bombs away LOL. More history found

 

https://madisonrecord.com/stories/519756778-the-case-that-made-karmeier-famous-avery-stands-out-as-end-to-powerful-class-actions

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/dodging-a-billion-dollar-verdict/
 

A sitting Illinois Supreme Court justice could soon face questions under oath about allegations that he voted to overturn a $1 billion verdict against a powerful corporation that secretly spent millions of dollars to help him get elected.

A lawsuit now being tried in an Illinois courtroom alleges that insurance giant State Farm essentially funded and operated a multimillion-dollar campaign in 2004 to elect Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier to the state supreme court. On August 5, 2013, the plaintiffs in Hale v. State Farm told the judge hearing the case that their “stated intention” is to ask Justice Karmeier to address the allegations in a deposition. The plaintiffs contend that State Farm violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, by using the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Illinois Republican Party, and other entities as conduits to conceal its role in funding and operating the justice’s campaign. RICO allows plaintiffs to sue persons or entities involved in a conspiracy to engage in improper activities such as bribery, fraud, or violent crimes. In May of this year, a federal judge denied State Farm’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and ruled that the plaintiffs can continue with discovery. The trial could unearth more details about the extent of State Farm’s involvement in Justice Karmeier’s 2004 campaign.

The lessons already learned from the still-unfolding scandal are apparent. Campaign-finance reform advocates have called on state legislators to address the shortcomings of state campaign-finance laws and judicial-ethics rules in order to prevent a cataclysmic breach of justice from recurring. Such reforms are crucial to quashing the widespread belief that our judicial system is up for sale to the highest bidder.

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2023 at 8:14 AM, steveTA84 said:

Awesome interview regarding the judicial ethics in play and Pritzker’s idiotic excuse/response to this mess 

 

 

For the record...

Bob Fioretti is violating the code of ethics for NOT reporting this to the bar! 

This is no different than a teacher being required report suspected sexual abuse of a child WHEREVER it is (in school, school year, regardless) they loose their license to teach!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • mauserme changed the title to Caulkins v Prizker Recusal Thread
  • mauserme unpinned this topic
  • Molly B. locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...