Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Settlement talks in Duckworth case “initiated by the judge”

Posted in:

Illinois

Republican U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk’s re-election campaign on Thursday slammed Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth for seeking a pretrial settlement conference in a civil lawsuit stemming from her time heading the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs.

But the settlement conference, scheduled for Friday in Downstate Union County, was “initiated by the judge” and not Duckworth, said a spokeswoman for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is representing the congresswoman in the case.

“He strongly encouraged it,” Madigan spokeswoman Maura Possley said of the trial judge in the case, Mark Boie. Judges in civil matters routinely set conferences in front of other judges in hopes a settlement can be reached before it goes to trial.

Duckworth, a two-term congresswoman, is scheduled to face a civil trial in August for alleged workplace retaliation involving two workers at the Anna Veterans Home. Duckworth has said she wanted the truth to come out but has declined discussing specifics because of the pending litigation.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 9:19 am

Comments

What a scandal, a judge encouraging a pre-trial settlement.

It only happens in every civil lawsuit.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 9:23 am
More proof that Kirk has lost his mind: Criticism of routine matters.

Comment by Biography Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 9:24 am
if duckworth felt she did nothing wrong, why engage in any settlement discussions?

Comment by Matlock Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 9:24 am
It’s pretty normal for a judge to encourage this. It also indicates that there’s very much “something” to settle.

The Kirk campaign was a bit too aggressive here.

Comment by A guy Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 9:24 am
I’m not saying I did or did not do anything wrong. Heckuva slogan to run on.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 9:24 am
The Kirk Campaign strategy is going to come down to how the settlement is finalized now?

Ugh.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 9:38 am
As for why participate? Simple, at the very least not to risk getting on the judge’s bad side. Your position may not be to settle the case, but you go anyway and attempt to look reasonable. If a judge wants a settlement conference, you go.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 9:41 am
Mark Kirk has already lost the right-wing vote.

Comment by Hedley Lamarr Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 9:50 am
This really is the issue for the Kirk campaign so bringing attention to the settlement conference doesn’t really surprise me. This is probably the best leverage that they have and keeping the story in the news is the best that they can hope for even if that means drawing attention to routine procedural issues. The objective isn’t to debate why a settlement conference is occurring, it’s to remind us that this issue is still active. If you can spin this to make it look a bit nefarious all the better.

Comment by pundent Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 10:24 am
The fact is that voter standards have become so low that even an FBI investigation of a felony can’t affect candidate support, let alone a civil suit for a government cover up.

It’s not about character or ability anymore. It’s all about identity politics. A minority liberal woman who’ll do as she’s told by Dem leadership in the Senate is the “identity” most Illinois voters will support.

Everything else is just noise in this race.

Comment by illinois bob Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 10:37 am
pretty certain that any news story that outlines duckworth is either going to trial or settling a case at taxpayer expense is good for the kirk camp.

Comment by peets Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 10:53 am
=if duckworth felt she did nothing wrong, why engage in any settlement discussions?=

Because when you go to trial, it doesn’t matter what Duckworth (or any single party to a case thinks), it matters what the judge might think. You avoid a time-consuming trial and possible risk by settlement. If the parties can’t reach a settlement then it goes to trail.

Comment by Qui Tam Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 11:00 am
Matlock…you’re no Matlock if you have to ask why talk settlement.

Comment by d.p.gumby Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 11:19 am
Obviously to her advantage to talk settlement. Anyone would do it.

The real question is what type deal will be offered. When we know more about that we can more properly determine the politics, if any, involved in this process.

Let us hope that their is full and open disclosure of this situation.

Comment by Federalist Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 11:30 am
===The real question is what type deal will be offered. When we know more about that we can more properly determine the politics, if any, involved in this process.

Let us hope that their is full and open disclosure of this situation.===

I’d always like to think the best of our political system, but the fact that a “Madigan” is representing her, makes it hard to look past it…

Comment by Clark Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 11:42 am
This is the best issue Kirk has, which says a lot about Kirk’s poor position.

Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Jun 24, 16 @ 1:50 pm