* First, click here and read Jason Gonzales’ deposition, which is part of his federal lawsuit against House Speaker Michael Madigan and Madigan’s organization.
I’m still reading through it, but I did come upon this nugget…
Q. Why do you believe the Hispanic voters would have voted for you?
A. Because I was bringing a new voice to the district and a voice that resonated with them, and that’s the reason why I ran because the 22nd District needed a new voice. It needed someone who was going to represent the interests, the hopes, and ·the issues of the Hispanic community in my district, which is now 81 percent. […]
It has a lot to do with the fact that I’m Hispanic, and I can understand them. I can understand their culture. I’m Hispanic, Mexican-American. I speak fluent Spanish.
From March of 2016…
[ABC7’s Charles Thomas has] a very interesting take on Madigan’s opponent Jason Gonzales after hanging out with him much of Friday. Thomas claims Gonzales has real trouble “connecting” with Latino voters in the district, partly because he grew up in the suburbs and partly because he doesn’t speak very fluent Spanish.
* And this is just odd…
Q. Do you think you would have done better if Joe Barboza had had a platform and raised money and gone door to door?
A. Maybe.
Q. How would you have done better?
A. Well, I would have had to campaign against him.
Q. How would that have made things better for you?
A. I would have gotten my message out to more people in the district.
Q. How would Barboza running have gotten your message out to more people in the district?
A. Well, because I would have had to run more ads to counter some of the things he said.
MR. PERAICA: Who is “he”?
THE WITNESS: Joe Barboza.
BY MR. VAUGHT: Q. So you would have raised more money if Barboza had ran?
A. Not necessarily.
* More…
Q. So you think the Hispanic vote was all yours?
A. I would say most of it was, yeah.
Q. Why?
A. Because I was the right candidate for the right time, and I had secured, I believe, a good amount of the Hispanics in my district to vote for me, and I had a campaign, and I got my message out, but it was drownded by Speaker Madigan’s negativity.
Q. So is it the negativity that caused you to lose, or was it Barboza or Rodriguez?
A. I believe I would have won the election had these two sham candidates not been on the ballot.
Q. So I want to go back when I asked you do you believe the Hispanic vote was yours?
A. Yes.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. One, because I’m Hispanic, and they’re looking for a new leader and they want a new voice.
Q. Is Chuy Garcia Hispanic?
A. Chuy Garcia wasn’t running in the 22nd District.
Q. But he endorsed Michael Madigan; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would that sway Hispanic voters?
A. Possibly.
* They really twisted him up in knots…
Q. Well, you said that the Hispanic vote was yours, and you based it on the fact your name is Gonzales, which you said is a common Hispanic name, and many people would know somebody named Gonzales?
A. Yes.
Q. So why is it okay to get votes simply because your name is Gonzales, but it’s not okay if your name is Rodriguez or Barboza?
A. Because I was a real candidate. […]
A. I answered it. The difference is they don’t deserve those votes.
Q. Who makes that determination?
A. The voters.
Q. So is it your opinion that you deserve to be the Hispanic candidate?
A. Yes.
Q. And why do you deserve to be the Hispanic candidate over anybody else?
A. Because I’m the right person to lead my community and give Hispanics the voice that they have been wanting for the past 37 years. […]
Q. So you have a constitutional right to have people vote for you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anybody prohibit somebody from voting for you?
A. No. […]
Q. Is that what this was, a dirty trick?
A. Madigan and Barboza were a dirty trick.
Q. And you got to campaign saying that it was a dirty trick?
A. Could you repeat that? […]
Q. So who do you want to be prohibited from being on the ballot?
A. Anyone that isn’t a legitimate candidate.
Q. Who gets to determine if they’re legitimate?
A. I suppose we’ll let the Court decide that.
Q. So are you asking for an injunction that if you run again, anybody else who would run has to go to the Court to get permission?
A. No. […]
Q. It says, “Upon information and belief, defendants Rodriguez and Barboza received rewards for their action of running as sham candidates for state representative.” Do you have any knowledge of Rodriguez or Barboza receiving rewards?
A. No direct — I have no direct knowledge of that.
Q. Just to be clear, do you have indirect knowledge?
A. I don’t. […]
Q. If you go to the last page of this document, this is an article from Tom Schuba on March 2, 2016, NBC Chicago. It says, “‘Diluting the ballot is the oldest trick in the book,’ Gonzales said, ‘but we don’t believe it’s going to change things very drastically.’” Did you say that?
A. I know I said the first part. I’m not sure that I recall saying the second part.
Q. So do you believe Mr. Schuba gave a false quote?
A. He may have given a typo. I just don’t remember saying that. […]
Q. I’ve handed you what is identified as [Gonzales supporter] BrownMillerGroup’s post-election analysis. Have you seen this before?
A. Yes. […]
Q. It says, “Despite this, final election results were far from satisfactory. Data we received from polling indicated common background shared with a candidate was not of particular importance to the Hispanic voters of this district.” It kind of undercuts your argument that the Hispanics voters were looking just to vote for a Hispanic candidate; is that correct?
A. I don’t agree with it.
* The Question: Any other observations and thoughts?
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 2:47 pm:
More evidence that Jason was what we already thought he was.
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 2:50 pm:
Drownded. Sounds like Spanish isn’t the only language he struggles with.
- jimmydean - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 2:53 pm:
funny, you could substitute some of his argument with the arguments they make for “wikileaks” influencing the election in 2016..but like the lawyer said “did anyone(wikileaks) force you to vote for a certain candidate……”
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 2:56 pm:
Inadmissible hearsay…
Q. It says, “Upon information and belief, defendants Rodriguez and Barboza received rewards for their action of running as sham candidates for state representative.” Do you have any knowledge of Rodriguez or Barboza receiving rewards?
A. No direct — I have no direct knowledge of that.
Q. Just to be clear, do you have indirect knowledge?
A. I don’t. […]
- 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 2:56 pm:
===I don’t agree with it.===
Another candidate too smart to believe his own polling data. What are they called again? Oh, right. Losers.
- Perrid - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 2:58 pm:
Jimmydean, I would argue there’s a stronger argument against wikileaks. Wouldn’t you say hacking only one candidate and working with that candidate’s opponent to time dropping choice documents, spinning the story as long and loud as you can, is more substantial than putting a name on the ballot? Compared to wikileaks, the Madigan lawsuit falls flat
- Truthteller - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 2:58 pm:
Access to our court system is way too easy. This suit should have been dismissed long ago.
Any caper which puts together Bruce Rauner, Blair Hull and Tony Peraica is doomed to fail.
Any one of them would screw up anything they touched all by himself. Doesn’t take all three to produce failure
- Arsenal - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 2:59 pm:
==Q. It says, “Upon information and belief, defendants Rodriguez and Barboza received rewards for their action of running as sham candidates for state representative.” Do you have any knowledge of Rodriguez or Barboza receiving rewards?
A. No direct — I have no direct knowledge of that.
Q. Just to be clear, do you have indirect knowledge?
A. I don’t. […]==
This can get you sanctions.
- Al - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 2:59 pm:
What a waste of taxpayers dollars. Madigan did not win with a plurality; he got 2 out of three votes.
- JS Mill - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:05 pm:
I am not a lawyer or a legal scholar, but I have read more than a couple of depositions. This is the worst one I have seen in a while. Gonzales is terrible, sounds like a child.
- Soccermom - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:06 pm:
Oh, Truthteller. You just gave me a fabulous idea for a caper movie…
- VanillaMan - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:06 pm:
He overdosed on his own Kool-Aid.
- The Captain - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:10 pm:
I wish I had more free time to read more because this is a fun read.
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:15 pm:
I would think his criminal record might have turned off a few voters.
- West Side the Best Side - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:18 pm:
There should be sanctions against the plaintiff’s side, but with some of the trial court’s rulings so far, who knows.
- Roman - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:19 pm:
Did Madigan put up sham candidates? Yes, undoubtedly.
And now Gonzales and Peraica have put up a sham lawsuit. Madigan broke no laws and did nothing to deny this goof his civil rights. There is simply no right of action here.
Shame on Judge Kennelly for allowing Tony Peraica to parade his circus around the federal court system.
- Responsa - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:22 pm:
Depositions (including one’s own) are usually not pretty to read. After reading, one rarely comes away thinking “wow, now that’s an impressive deponent.” The depositions of Gonzalez and Madigan are definitely not exceptions to the rule.
- Nietzsche - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:25 pm:
=This is the worst one I have seen in a while. Gonzales is terrible, sounds like a child.=
Agree. Not a good look for Gonzales, sham or not. He’s playing the illegitimate Dem establishment argument that others shouldn’t be allowed to run because it takes votes from the “real” candidate. Wonder what would happen if a voter testified that he or she actually wanted Rodriguez or Barboza to win?
Also what’s with the unsupportable “received rewards” allegation? That should not have even been in the complaint if the plaintiff doesn’t have knowledge.
- Retired Educator - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:30 pm:
This has been a cluster from the very beginning. It is the definition of a frivolous suit. I hope the court will just dismiss the whole thing. You run, you take your chances on winning or losing. Gonzales lost. 50% do that, and don’t file law suits. Move on, or get ready to run again.
- Nonbeleiver - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:38 pm:
It has a lot to do with the fact that I’m Hispanic, and I can understand them. I can understand their culture. I’m Hispanic, Mexican-American. I speak fluent Spanish.
Ummmm.
- Sunshyne40 - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:43 pm:
Reading his statements, thoughts and rationale I think he and everyone else in the 22nd is lucky. Whew!!!
- Chris P. Bacon - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:43 pm:
All strikes me as irrelevant noise. Hard to imagine how it would be admissible in the courtroom or what its relevance would be in any case.
- 37B - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:46 pm:
This came to mind:
See dig, mama, uh, do ya understand that?
(No)
Well uh, like, I can understand how you can’t, because I’ve been uh,
You know, Paris, Beirut, you know
I mean Iraq, Iran, “Ukraingia”, you know
I speak very very um, fluent Spanish
Ah, todo ’sta bien, chévere, you understand that?
(Chévere?)
Chevere, bien chevere, is that right mama?
- Sunshyne40 - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:46 pm:
I think everyone in the 22nd district is lucky he didn’t win. It was hard to read and follow his logic & rationale.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:47 pm:
While Madigan sounds like a measured person, giving the needle back with lapses in memory that might worry some…
…Gonzalez sounded entitled, like he was robbed, while not clearly explaining, and seemingly thinking he has(d) a constituency that he clearly didn’t at the ballot box, good or bad math notwithstanding.
Madigan at one turn sounds like a “tactician in the tradition”, Gonzalez sounds like Fredo “sumptin in it for me” as an ethnicity seemingly owes him something for… whatever, and not truly understanding the politics as to why he lost, just hoping he can blame the loss on “Madigan”
Funny thing is… Gonzalez is right, and wrong, and wrong.
The old Grampa story is baloney, no one is fooled…
But where Gonzalez is wrong is believing and proving are two different things, and no one is owed any constituency… ever.
Great reads.
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:51 pm:
It appears this frivolous claim may be dismissed with prejudice?
#LosingSorely
- Nietzsche - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:52 pm:
=Funny thing is… Gonzalez is right, and wrong, and wrong.
The old Grampa story is baloney, no one is fooled…
But where Gonzalez is wrong is believing and proving are two different things, and no one is owed any constituency… ever.
Great reads. =
Agreed. My understanding is that the burden is on Gonzales, so he has to be right, and right, and right to prevail.
- Duopoly - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 3:55 pm:
=no one is owed any constituency… ever.=
Not according to the DNC.
- Harvest76 - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 4:12 pm:
I wonder if, with that level if detachment from reality, Mr. Gonzales has ever considered being the President of the United States.
- A Jack - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 4:13 pm:
Gonzales should be an honorary member of the BTIA, if he isn’t an actual member.
- TominChicago - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 4:14 pm:
This dep again shows just how bad a judge Kennelly is. Under the relevant decision, ballot shenanigans may violate the 14th amendment if they had a meaningful impact on the outcome of the election. Even if Gonzales ran alone against Madigan and got all the votes of thd other 2, he’d only be in the mid 30s against Madigan. But in reading the dep, its clear that Jason is worse as a client than Peraica is as lawyer, and that is a challenging achievement.
- Don't you worry 'bout a thing - Friday, Feb 1, 19 @ 4:17 pm:
@37B
=Chevere, bien chevere, is that right mama?=
Just listened to that and some other tunes from him.
He’s Truly.A.Genius