* Background is here if you need it. Gov. Pritzker was asked today about attorney Tom DeVore’s handling of a lawsuit against 145 school districts over the mask mandate…
Well, you know, he’s a grifter who is taking money from parents who are being taken advantage of. This is, we are trying to keep kids and parents and grandparents and teachers and everybody that’s in the community of the school safe. That’s my job as governor, that’s our job as elected officials.
And I have to say that, you know that going around and suing school districts and the governor and the Attorney General and everybody else in order to keep people less safe, that makes zero sense to me. So we’re gonna push back as hard as we can, certainly we’ll be in court.
The Attorney General, I just want to praise him and his staff. He has done an amazing job. You don’t want to spend all your time doing this, there are an awful lot of things that the Attorney General’s Office does to protect consumers out there. But the more you have to send lawyers out to fight these ridiculous lawsuits that are frankly making people less safe, that are harming our children, then you know, the less you can do to really lift up the entire state.
So I hope that the, you know, the reign of grifting and terror that he is trying to bring about in the school districts will come to and end.
*** UPDATE *** You knew this would happen…
After Pritzker’s “grifter” comments, DeVore said Thursday afternoon he’s hired an attorney and will sue the governor for defamation for being called a thief.
“That’s an insult to each and every one of my clients that are trying to protect their children,” DeVore said in an interview. “Not only is it defamation against my character and my profession, it is an insult against every one of those parents who are trying to protect their children.”
Illinois Supreme Court, Blair v. Walker, 1976…
We hold that the Governor is protected from actions for civil defamation by an absolute privilege when issuing statements which are legitimately related to matters committed to his responsibility. […]
We emphasize that today’s decision is not an endorsement of either the tenor or the content of the defendant’s statements concerning the plaintiffs. The Governor’s position could undoubtedly have been expressed to the people with language less calculated to injure the plaintiffs’ personal and professional reputations. While it is unfortunate that the application of executive immunity may occasionally deny relief to a deserving individual, the sacrifice is justified by the public’s need for free and unfettered action by its representatives.