* Some powerful trial lawyers have already forced one Illinois Supreme Court Justice to recuse himself from hearing the appeal of a $10.1 billion judgement against Philip Morris, but they haven’t been able to convince Justice Lloyd Karmeier to back away…
Karmeier said no, noting that Tillery and Co. “do not allege I harbor any actual bias for or against” either party. Instead, he said, they contend “various factors have combined to create ‘an objective and reasonable public perception’ that I am biased in favor of” Philip Morris because of the “unprecedented sums” spent in his 2004 election.Karmeier further noted that financial records reveal no donations to his 2004 campaign by Philip Morris, despite Tillery’s claim that it was “bankrolling” it. […]
“The notion that” Philip Morris financed “my run for office 10 years ago is just that, a notion,” he said.
Karmeier said he also “cannot help but notice” Tillery’s motion “bear(s) an unmistakable similarity to materials filed by the plaintiffs” in another big judgment case, involving State Farm Insurance.
“The only difference here is that the respondents here claim that those same contributions should be attributed to (Philip Morris) rather than State Farm,” he wrote.
* As I told subscribers the other day, a new group called Campaign for 2016 dropped well over a half million dollars to try and derail Karmeier’s retention bid…
* From a Karmeier campaign press release this afternoon…
It took less than a day for the shadow group known as “Campaign for 2016″ to emerge from the darkness, according to Retain Karmeier Campaign Manager Ron Deedrick.
“Now there is a public record of the political committee ‘Campaign for 2016,’ and it’s clear that a number of trial attorneys with deep pockets are working in concert to protect their investment in cases they are litigating,” Deedrick said. “A direct line can be drawn from those who seek to defeat the Justice and who have current cases before the courts, including the Illinois Supreme Court.
‘Campaign for 2016’ scored a $300,000 donation on October 16 from Chicago-area attorney George Zelcs. Zelcs is an attorney with the law firm of Korien Tillery, LLC based in St. Louis. Media accounts show that Zelcs is a lead attorney tied into a multi-billion dollar case that is now before the Illinois Supreme Court. The same media accounts also show that the class-action lawsuit could net more than $10 billion for the plaintiffs.
“The timing of this attack is questionable as well. The Justice entered an order back on September 24 that rejected the Tillery group’s efforts to obtain his recusal from the case,” Deedrick said. “This is likely a personal political response to the Justice’s order.”
*** UPDATE *** Another $500K was reported by the Campaign for 2016 this afternoon. An attorney with the above-mentioned Korein Tillery, the Power Rogers & Smith firm and Clifford Law Offices all kicked in.
- yo - Tuesday, Oct 21, 14 @ 3:23 pm:
How in the world does anyone think it is a good idea for supreme court justices to be allowed to receive campaign donations. Those with money control the levers of power in the legislature, the courts. Sickening. I realize appointed supreme courts have their issues too, but come on!
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Oct 21, 14 @ 3:32 pm:
It ain’t that much.money for that district.
- walker - Tuesday, Oct 21, 14 @ 3:41 pm:
yo: They’ve got to be appointed to avoid the money problem.
Even if you couldn’t give directly to their campaigns, you could form a superPAC, call it whatever fake thing you want, and figure out a way to support retention or removal with clever “issues” messages. We have lost the campaign finance regulation battle at the US Supreme Court level.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 21, 14 @ 3:50 pm:
Walks right. You ain’t seen nothing yet when it comes to money in politics, thanks to the Supremes.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Oct 21, 14 @ 3:57 pm:
I will say I find Justice Karmeier’s response troubling in one respect.
He does not deny that the tobacco giant bankrolled his campaign. His defense is “you cannot prove it.”
That is shady.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Oct 21, 14 @ 4:16 pm:
YDD -
That is part of the ongoing lawsuit against Justice Karmeier and State Farm. The plaintiffs allege that non-disclosed funds found their way into that race. If you look at his D-2 reports, Philip Morris itself gave Justice Karmeier nothing. Attorneys associated with the company gave money to Justice Karmeier, but to be fair Mr. Tillery also gave to Justice Karmeier’s opponent, Gordon Maag. The lawsuit has been going on for years.
Here are two articles about the campaign financing side of the race and Justice Karmeier’s decision. While the Madison Record has a tort reform slant, Ms. Krajelis is a very fair reporter.
https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/21538/supreme_court_decision_on_judges_and_campaign_contributions_recalls_race_between_karmeier_and_maag
http://madisonrecord.com/issues/332-class-action/266642-karmeier-pens-16-page-order-explaining-why-he-wont-recuse-in-price-v-philip-morris
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Oct 21, 14 @ 4:21 pm:
Look at the d1 for committee for 2016. It is based at 340 E Randolph, where Rauner owns 2 condos and a $100,000 parkibg spot. COINCIDENCE???????
- D.P.Gumby - Tuesday, Oct 21, 14 @ 5:56 pm:
Who on the ILSC has recused themself??
- illini - Tuesday, Oct 21, 14 @ 6:28 pm:
I heard about the ad yesterday, but only saw it on TV this afternoon. Not surprising in some respects given the dynamics of his first race when he did run as a Republican.
FYI, local newspapers in Southern Illinois will be running ads over the next 2 weeks urging retention of both Judge Karmeier as well as the Democrat Circuit Judges running for retention. These ads are being paid for by both County Central Committees ( Republican and Democrat ) as well as their affiliated organizations. Surprising cooperation, but not totally surprising considering a very prominent PI/Plaintiffs Attorney telling me he personally liked and trusted Judge Karmeier.
- Smitty Irving - Tuesday, Oct 21, 14 @ 9:08 pm:
The anti-Karmeier people should just trumpet his decision that consumers with auto insurance can’t go class action because as consumers of auto insurance they don’t have enough in common.