Rep. Drury loses round at Supreme Court
Thursday, Oct 1, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From the Daily Law Bulletin…
The Illinois Supreme Court ordered an appeals panel to look into a candidate’s claim that the incumbent’s $9 million defamation suit was aimed at silencing him during their campaign. […]
Democratic Rep. Scott R. Drury of Highwood filed the suit last year in Cook County Circuit Court, along with a motion for injunctive relief aimed at keeping Mark Neerhof — his Republican opponent for the 58th House District seat on the North Shore — from disseminating any ads “containing false information” about him.
He claimed Neerhof’s campaign and a conservative political action committee, Liberty Principles PAC, placed TV ads and mailers that incorrectly said he supported legislation to change the state’s education-funding formula. The ads also claimed he took that position to appease Democratic leaders.
Neerhof and his campaign filed a Section 2-619 motion to dismiss, arguing Drury’s claims should be tossed because of the Citizen Participation Act, which aims to protect citizens from so-called SLAPPs, or, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
He also submitted an affidavit saying neither he, nor his campaign, had anything to do with the advertisements.
In my non-lawyer opinion, this looks like a prime candidate for SLAPP designation. Go read the rest for more background and info.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:11 am:
Wait a minute. Did the Supremes know Drury is a former federal prosecutor?
- Let'sMovetoNorthDakota - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:12 am:
What a frivolous, thin-skinned lawsuit. His Dad filed the case for free, then made his opponent have to hire a lawyer. A flagrant SLAPP suit : Drury should have to pay the other side’s attorneys fees.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:13 am:
“Let me begin with reminding this esteem panel of jurists that I am a former Federal Prosecutor… “
- WizzardOfOzzie - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:18 am:
Rep. Drury loses… What a wonderful thought.
- Agricola - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:18 am:
==Wait a minute. Did the Supremes know Drury is a former federal prosecutor?==
If you hadn’t said something, I would never have known. s/
- Norseman - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:42 am:
=== “Valderrama ruled that Neerhof didn’t satisfy the first prong of” the 3 conditions for SLAPP designation “because he admitted that neither he nor his campaign placed the advertisements Drury took issue with.” ===
So a judge ruled that Neerhoof couldn’t claim SLAPP protection because he didn’t place the ads, but Drury is still allowed to sue him for defamation for those ads. What’s wrong with this picture.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 10:21 am:
=== What’s wrong with this picture===
Exactly right.
- McEnuf - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 10:24 am:
Has anyone told Neerhof that Scott is a former US Attorney and shouldn’t ever be questioned, let alone challenged?
- joe cannon - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 10:59 am:
so does this impact on his “rumored retirement”? btw, any confirmation of that?
- Anonymous Today - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 1:52 pm:
Funny that CapFax was silent when Drury “won” the first few rounds of this law suit earlier this year. Rich, it’s weird you have such an axe to grind against this guy. And to address the previous post, judging by the A-1s he filed yesterday night, I don’t think Drury is retiring any time soon.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 1:57 pm:
===Rich, it’s weird you have such an axe to grind against this guy===
What’re you gonna do? Turn your daddy loose on me, too?
lol
Bite me.
- Lobo Y Olla - Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 3:28 pm:
++What’re you gonna do? Turn your daddy loose on me, too?++
Commenters sometimes forget that Rich has the IP’s.
- Anonymous - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 7:49 am:
Oh uh, Rich, now he is going to FOIA you!