Shenanigans! “By any means necessary”
Friday, Oct 30, 2020 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Jim Dey…
When opposing candidates accuse each other of lying, it’s a pretty fair bet they’re both telling the truth, at least partially.
Facts taken out of context or misrepresented are part and parcel of political campaigns, particularly in quick-hitting radio and television ads aimed at audience emotions.
Last week, Illinois Supreme Court candidate Judy Cates accused her opponent, David Overstreet, of being sympathetic to child molesters and hostile to victims based on a Fifth District appellate court decision that overturned a man’s conviction based on a “trial in absentia” issue.
“Trial in absentia” questions have nothing to do with being sympathetic or unsympathetic to criminals or victims.
But in an election year, who cares?
All that matters is winning — by any means necessary. […]
Overstreet voted to overturn a child molester’s conviction based on the judge’s mistaken decision to hold a trial for the defendant when the defendant was in the hospital. So Overstreet likes child molesters.
* Check out the mass text sent out in the district by a shadowy group opposing Overstreet…
By any means necessary is right.
* Also a bit ironic considering this…
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Republican candidate for Illinois Supreme Court David Overstreet over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by a lawyer who’s a top contributor to his opponent, Democrat Judy Cates..
* The Republicans were clearly caught off guard in that district…
A law firm representing the Overstreet 2020 campaign has asked a southern Illinois TV station to stop running a trial-lawyer sponsored ad it says is “disgustingly false.”
In a 30-second spot paid for by “Clean Courts Committee,” the mother of a 6-year-old who was allegedly raped says she can’t believe Judge Overstreet would let the accused “go.”
“No charges, no registering as a sex offender. Nothing,” the mother says.
The accused, Jerad Peoples, was convicted in absentia by a Marion County judge in 2017. His conviction was overturned in June at the Fifth District Appellate Court by a three-judge panel, lead by Justice Milton Wharton. The judges found that Peoples did not miss his trial date willfully but missed it because he nearly took his life and spent the day in a hospital.
Justices David Overstreet and John Barberis concurred in the decision with Wharton.
* Turns out, Judge Judy has a similar problem…
But court records show that four years ago Cates, as appellate court justice in the same court where Overstreet serves, made a very similar concurrence in the case of a Bethalto man.
Cates, Democrat, runs against Overstreet, Republican, for the seat of retiring Justice Lloyd Karmeier.
In a Nov. 22, 2016 opinion, Cates concurred with a majority to reverse the first conviction of Michael Burgund, who upon second trial was convicted of sexually assaulting his two minor daughters between the ages of one and three.
The appellate court decision that Cates concurred in, like the one Overstreet concurred in, remanded the case back to the trial court for a second trial. The second Burgund trial took place a year and a half later, in Madison County.
- Dotnonymous - Friday, Oct 30, 20 @ 2:08 pm:
While both candidates lied …they did both tell partial truths…so there’s that….to feel good about?…partially?
- Dotnonymous - Friday, Oct 30, 20 @ 2:10 pm:
Rulings will henceforth be delivered from a Bass Boat?
- Back to the Future - Friday, Oct 30, 20 @ 2:30 pm:
You would think Judge Judy and particularly her supporters would have better judgement than coming up with such trash.
Hopefully voters will not fall for her nonsense.
- Downstate Dem - Friday, Oct 30, 20 @ 2:38 pm:
She must have thin skin. In 2000, after Cates and her brother sued Publisher’s Clearing House claiming false advertising and demanded $3 million of a proposed $10 million settlement for themselves, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan likened the duo to “bank robbers.” They sued McClellan for $1 million, demanding in discovery anything he’d written that was “in any way critical or mocking to lawyers or lawsuits” as well as any correspondence he’d had with anyone relating to the lawsuit.
- Thomas Paine - Friday, Oct 30, 20 @ 3:20 pm:
Overstreet threw out a conviction because the defendant was hospitalized, but his lawyer was there and allowed the proceedings to continue without objection, correct?
That seems very different than the case Cates sent back, where the judge allowed a confession of a man with an IQ of ten and no lawyer or advocate present.
As I understand it, Overstreet’s case involved convictions for predatory sexual assault, which means he was going out into public and attacking the daughters of others.
The Cates case involved a man who molested his own daughters. Still a terrible crime, but a guy who was very likely in no way a threat to other people’s children, and certainly no longer a threat to his own kids, since their mom was the one that brought charges.
Also as i understand it, the defendant in Cates’ case was subsequently convicted, while the Overstreet offender is indeed loose in the public now.
- Terrilyn Briant - Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 2:39 pm:
David Overstreet’s supporters and the Illinois Republican Party drew the line in the sand with the Madigan nonsense. There was a $5,000 expenditure from the Cates campaign to Illinois Democratic Party which they claim was for the voter file. Yes, Cates donated to Democrats, she’s a Democrat. Then they hurled the “camo wearing” nonsense. The lady owns guns and goes hunting and fishing. Listen folks, political party doesn’t determine hobbies. Then they went for “putting Cates signs by Republican signs.” Ridiculous point in itself, but people can favor both a Republican and Democrat. The argument in itself is an insult to the intelligence of Republicans. Cates is a trial lawyer who has taken on large corporations, and won- you know she is going to strike. Republicans should have led with the Burgund case. I would note that Burgund is serving natural life in prison, whereas, People’s is out awaiting a new trial. Republicans have hurled “pedophiles” at Democrats for the past year. It’s not surprising that a Democrat figured out how to use it in their favor (if you call this a favor.) Overstreet has pointed everyone to the donations claiming he’s never looked at them himself. That’s probably why he hasn’t noticed the glaring $11,600 donation from one of the largest pro-choice/anti-gun donors in the state. The same donor donated to the Cates campaign and the Clean Courts Committee, but why Overstreet’s campaign?