Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: When was Rauner’s fate sealed?
Next Post: Watch the VBM numbers
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
The last column I write before an election day is always the toughest because some papers will publish this before election day and others will publish it after. So, today you get a yard sign story.
Let’s start with Congressman Peter Roskam’s campaign, which sent out two press releases during the fall campaign complaining about stolen yard signs.
It wasn’t a stolen sign that prompted a proposed temporary restraining order by an apparent supporter. Instead the fear of unwanted yard signs wound up in Lake County court.
A group called Illinois Citizens Ignited formed after one of Roskam’s constituents had two yard signs made to protest Roskam’s NRA support. She placed the signs, which read “Roskam accepted $20,450 from the NRA,” next to Roskam yard signs. The signs were updated after Roskam received more NRA money. Ignited has reported raising $4,420.
Ignited asks residents on its website to help the group find Roskam signs “in the public right of way,” or on a street corner or “along a busy road.” The group has an online form to fill out to report sign locations and it uses a Facebook page to spread the word.
Congressman Roskam was once a law partner in the personal injury firm Salvi, Roskam & Maher. That firm is now called Salvi & Maher and includes the husband and wife duo of former state Rep. Al Salvi and Kathy Salvi.
Kathy Salvi filed a motion for a temporary restraining order against the group on Oct. 23 because, as she claimed through another attorney at her firm, she “fears that her property will be trespassed upon … and that her freedom of speech and political expression, especially as it relates to the free exclusion of the same on her own private property, will be violated by Ignited.”
Ignited’s response claimed that Salvi doesn’t live in Roskam’s district, so she shouldn’t be worried that her yard would be tagged. The judge dismissed the case.
But another TRO demand was filed a few days later against Ignited by a company that owns a shopping center in Lake Zurich. The motion was also filed by that same former Roskam firm.
The new filing claims that since Ignited has “incited, encouraged and/or instructed” incidents of trespass, and has already placed one of the anti-Roskam signs on the plaintiff’s property next to a pro-Roskam sign, it has reason to fear it could happen again.
Congressman Roskam appeared at an event in August with the owner of the shopping center and called the owner and his spouse “dear friends,” according to the Daily Herald. The Roskam campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The plaintiffs have a point. Don’t put something on my property without my consent. I get that. But a lawsuit seems like a bit much.
Meanwhile, if you think that court action is a little excessive, how does a lawsuit seeking $1 million per removed yard sign sound? That’s the case filed in the 59th House District, where Dan Didech (D-Buffalo Grove) is running against Karen Feldman (R-Lincolnshire) in an open seat race to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Carol Sente.
Feldman and two other local Republican candidates are suing Didech in his official capacity as Vernon Township Supervisor and the township itself because they believe Didech ordered their yard signs removed.
They claim they “placed, or caused to be placed” yard signs in a park, which turns out to be near a polling place.
They allege that Didech had their Republican signs removed, but not Democratic signs. The suit also claims Didech had no legal authority to remove anything. They’re asking $1 million for each sign “to punish them and to deter others from similar wrongful conduct.”
Feldman’s attorney told me that police reports have been filed and said the matter has been referred to the state’s attorney.
Now, if this is true and Didech abused his authority, he should face consequences. But I thought the GOP was for lawsuit reform.
* From Brendan Murray on Sunday morning…
Hello Mr. Miller,
My name is Brendan Murray, and I am the attorney who represented Mrs. Salvi and now represents The Fidelity Group, LP as to their claims against IL Citizens Ignited.
I had the pleasure of reading your 11/2/18 article Saturday evening – wow $1 million per sign? I hope to see a follow-up to that one!
I didn’t want to bother you too late in the night, so I waited until this morning.
After reading your article, I thought that it was very well put, which is why I ask that you give credence to what I am about to say. I know you stated it was your last article pre-election, but in case you ever follow-up with this story, or are reporting another similar matter, that you take the opportunity to clarify something that was put to question in your 11/2/18 article.
You are correct in stating that bringing action into court for an emergency injunctive relief (a.k.a. temporary restraining order, “TRO”) may be a bit much. The granting of a TRO is to maintain the status quo to prevent further harm, but is only applied in exceptional and emergency circumstances because it is considered a drastic remedy.
You are also correct when you say not everything needs to be brought into court. However, the court system is exactly the proper place to bring conflicts such as these, especially in the passionate political climate of the day. It is not just me arguing this, it has been the public policy of Illinois since 1992 when the Illinois Supreme Court held in People v. DiGuida, 152 Ill. 2d 104, 126 (1992), that without the ability of a plaintiff to request relief from court system in a conflict between a private property owner’s rights and the freedom of expression right of another, the only recourse is to resort to self-help. This is not adequate according to the Supreme Court of Illinois, and therefore the public policy is to give individuals an opportunity to resolve the conflict through the court system.
Especially in this passionate climate as it comes to politics and elections, I think reducing incidents of these conflicts is paramount to maintaining respect for the rights of all individuals involved.
In People v. DiGuida, the Supreme Court also found that the private property owner’s right to use and exclude from their property as they wish is a right that is superior to the right of any entrant onto that private property to engage in unconsented to free speech.
These conflicts are unwarranted in a society that believes that open dialogue is the key to success, but as you well know there is activity claimed by all sides as to sign theft, property trespass, etc. Importantly, and to your worry of overkill, an analysis of the details between the first TRO suit from 10/26/18, in which our petition was denied, and that of the second suit from 11/2/18, which granted my client temporary relief, reveals the standards to satisfy in a TRO are difficult to obtain, and the clear capability of the court to apply this rigorous standard. This, again, is due to the remedy being one of a drastic nature.
I only ask that you consider clarifying this issue whenever you get a chance, as you are clearly an author whose writings communicate clear and critical analysis, and thus, your influence to society’s understanding of their rights is great.
IL Citizens Ignited made a press release dated October 30, 2018, stating the Court Order from the Salvi lawsuit gave the right to post signs throughout the 6th district. This was a complete mischaracterization of the Order from 10/26/18, and the Judge made sure it was so stated in the Order from 11/2/18 that nothing in that Order is to be considered as giving IL Citizens Ignited the right to trespass onto private property or post signs on the same. The Judge was not happy at the misrepresentation in the media as to the law and the rights of the citizens.
I appreciate any consideration you have to my input, and please do not take this as any criticism to your work – thank you for your efforts!
Take care,
Brendan M. Murray
That was the most polite letter I’ve ever received from an attorney in my life, including my own.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 10:54 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: When was Rauner’s fate sealed?
Next Post: Watch the VBM numbers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The merits of his argument aside, counselor Murray sets a good example for all of us in how to communicate disagreement in such a way that it doesn’t alienate the recipient.
Comment by anon2 Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 11:15 am
From the Illinois Citizen’s Ignited website:
“Also, please leave any signs - ours or any candidates - where they are. Do not move or touch signs. Most importantly, we do not condone trespassing and the placement of signs on private property without the consent of the property owner. If you see a sign that is not where it belongs, please let us know and we will retrieve it.”
What is not found is an statement saying they have a right to trespass. I guess if they were removing a sign that a property owner made a complaint about, it could be assumed that the owner gave them permission to remove it as well.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 11:30 am
= The merits of his argument aside, counselor Murray sets a good example for all of us in how to communicate disagreement in such a way that it doesn’t alienate the recipient. =
As Rich might say, “more of this please”.
Comment by cover Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 11:35 am
So where is this press release that the polite Mr. Murray is describing? The one that says ICI is allowed to trespass? It isn’t on the internet. At least not now
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 11:36 am
And then there is the issue of (in my area) republican signs placed in the public right of way, easements, and other public areas that are supposed to be off limits. I, and many of my fellow citizens consider these signs to be a special kind of litter, and would like to find a way to MAKE IT STOP!!!!!
Comment by Education First Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 11:41 am
Mr. Murray, aka, ‘The Mr. Rogers of Law’.
Comment by Matts Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 11:54 am
If there’s no “private property/do not trespass” sign posted how do you know it’s private property versus a public way, especially when there are other yard signs on the location? Does the owner have a duty to notify folks that the land in question is indeed private property and that trespassing is prohibited?
Comment by Gus Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 12:25 pm
A masterful letter! Mr. Murray’s English teacher should be proud.
Comment by Morningstar Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 12:36 pm
Why in heaven’s name is the campaign putting any energy into this whatsoever? If YARD SIGNS are likely to make the difference in a Congressional campaign, something is terribly, terribly wrong.
Comment by Soccermom Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 12:36 pm
While I applaud Mr. Murray’s civility, his clients are basically telling the kids to stay off their lawns.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 2:05 pm
Some one placed a political adv on State of IL property in front of my house. Do I have the right to remove it?
Comment by Hickory Monday, Nov 5, 18 @ 4:03 pm
Mr. Murray’s high school English teacher may be impressed, his law school ethics professor? Likely appalled.
Comment by Jennifer42 Thursday, Nov 8, 18 @ 5:30 am