Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Recusal Thread


mauserme

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/31/2023 at 4:04 PM, steveTA84 said:

Added into link. Checkmate, Judge Rochford. Your own words regarding “appearance of bias” as a judge, which is clearly an issue here with all this stuff 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh! Added in! 
https://patch.com/illinois/lakeforest/elizabeth-rochford-illinois-supreme-court-candidate-2nd-district

What other issues do you intend to address during your campaign?

Inclusion of all people is a priority in my work and personal life every day. I am a past Chair of the LCBA Community Outreach & Diversity Committee and I continue to be an active member. Addressing bias in the courthouse and the community is a lifelong journey of self-examination and improvement. My experience includes co-chairing an Illinois Judges Association initiative called “Building Confidence in the Legal System,” an educational series focusing on racial and other inequities in and around the courthouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2023 at 3:49 PM, steveTA84 said:

 

On 4/1/2023 at 3:10 PM, JTHunter said:

No working video.

 

Instead of the monster 136 MB bandwidth killer video file, here is a downsized much smaller video (about 1/10 the size) that should suffice. 🤣

 

480p size 14 MB 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I just got word that this whole thing caused other folks to start digging and they’re finding things that were missed and are passing it on to the appropriate people. The fact these judges took photos holding anti-gun lobbying group’s stuff while campaigning (instead of just posing for pics) probably adds fuel to the fire 

 

 

Grassroots guerrilla activism FTW

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2023 at 2:31 PM, steveTA84 said:

So I just got word that this whole thing caused other folks to start digging and they’re finding things that were missed and are passing it on to the appropriate people. The fact these judges took photos holding anti-gun lobbying group’s stuff while campaigning (instead of just posing for pics) probably adds fuel to the fire 

 

 

Grassroots guerrilla activism FTW

Is this all part of that social justice I keep hearing about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2023 at 2:31 PM, steveTA84 said:

So I just got word that this whole thing caused other folks to start digging and they’re finding things that were missed and are passing it on to the appropriate people. The fact these judges took photos holding anti-gun lobbying group’s stuff while campaigning (instead of just posing for pics) probably adds fuel to the fire 

 

 

Grassroots guerrilla activism FTW

Can you elaborate on “things that were missed”, and what it means in the bigger picture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Rich LOL. There’s one major difference here. This is revolving around a law that was enacted in which it’s almost impossible to see how it’s not a conflict of interest, which considering it’s not only Pritzker, but Welch and lobbying groups involved, it’s way different than your examples. But please, continue to complain 

 

https://capitolfax.com

 

2D3D5563-42AF-414D-ACFC-6AE58FC696FE.thumb.jpeg.fe58fbe3f84517e3ae5f08c46b6070e1.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2023 at 4:19 PM, steveTA84 said:

Oh Rich LOL. There’s one major difference here. This is revolving around a law that was enacted in which it’s almost impossible to see how it’s not a conflict of interest, which considering it’s not only Pritzker, but Welch and lobbying groups involved, it’s way different than your examples. But please, continue to complain 

 

https://capitolfax.com

 

2D3D5563-42AF-414D-ACFC-6AE58FC696FE.thumb.jpeg.fe58fbe3f84517e3ae5f08c46b6070e1.jpeg

After they passed this unconstitutional "law" Rich went on a tirade about how since the Bill of Rights were Amendments then they were "afterthoughts" and not that important........its just communists showing their true colors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to the Justices receiving $500,000 in excess contributions.

If I read the law correctly.

Did/Do/ Have they/  the Justices have to turn anything in excess of $500,000 over to the state treasure.

 

From

Public Act 102-0909
 
HB0716 Enrolled    LRB102 10068 RJF 15388 b

 

 

(b-5) Judicial elections.
        (1) In addition to any other provision of this
            section, a candidate political committee established to
            spport or oppose a candidate seeking nomination to the
            supreme Court, Appellate Court, or Circuit Court may not:
            (A) accept contributions from any entity that does
                not disclose the identity of those who make
                contributions to the entity, except for contributions
                that are not required to be itemized by this Code; or
            
            (B) accept contributions from any out-of-state
                person, as defined in this Article.
                (1.1) In addition to any other provision of this
                    Section, a political committee that is self-funding, as
                    described in subsection
                    (h) of this Section, and is
                        established to support or oppose a candidate seeking
                        nomination, election, or retention to the Supreme Court,
                        the Appellate Court, or the Circuit Court may not accept
                        contributions from any single person, other than the
                        judicial candidate or the candidate's immediate family, in
                        a cumulative amount that exceeds $500,000 in any election
                        cycle. Any contribution in excess of the limits in this
                        paragraph (1.1) shall escheat to the State of Illinois.
                        Any political committee that receives such a contribution
                        shall immediately forward the amount that exceeds $500,000
                        to the State Treasurer who shall deposit the funds into
                        the State Treasury.

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...