Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rep. Drury loses round at Supreme Court

Posted in:

Illinois

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.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:05 am

Comments

Wait a minute. Did the Supremes know Drury is a former federal prosecutor?

Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:11 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.

Comment by Let'sMovetoNorthDakota Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:12 am
“Let me begin with reminding this esteem panel of jurists that I am a former Federal Prosecutor… “

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:13 am
Rep. Drury loses… What a wonderful thought.

Comment by WizzardOfOzzie 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/

Comment by Agricola Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:18 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.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 9:42 am
=== What’s wrong with this picture===

Exactly right.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 10:21 am
Has anyone told Neerhof that Scott is a former US Attorney and shouldn’t ever be questioned, let alone challenged?

Comment by McEnuf Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 10:24 am
so does this impact on his “rumored retirement”? btw, any confirmation of that?

Comment by joe cannon Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 10:59 am
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.

Comment by Anonymous Today Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 1:52 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.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 1:57 pm
++What’re you gonna do? Turn your daddy loose on me, too?++

Commenters sometimes forget that Rich has the IP’s.

Comment by Lobo Y Olla Thursday, Oct 1, 15 @ 3:28 pm
Oh uh, Rich, now he is going to FOIA you!

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 7:49 am