A Quadruple Whopper from “Illinois Integrity Fund”

Dark Money Mud Slinging Now Includes Former State Rep.

Despite former State Rep. Cal Skinner being awarded custody of his daughter after the alleged incident, the slander seems to surface every election.

The allegations on the libelous mailer received yesterday by a Friend of McHenry County Blog were so insidious, a cover up label was placed on a portion of the hit piece prior to mailing.

The back side of the mailer had an easy to remove sticky label covering up the libelous accusation.

Back side of the mailer with the cover-up removed.


Comments

A Quadruple Whopper from “Illinois Integrity Fund” — 22 Comments

  1. The smell of fear and desperation hangs heavy
    in the air over the DEMOCRATS.
    Vote Ives, our last best hope.

  2. Seems the local RepubliCON choices are on par with POTUS. When does the lunacy stop and the normalcy begin?

  3. Chico, these are sent out by the Democrats! All lies. You can bet the ones attacked by this anonymous group from Crook County are the Conservatives.

  4. Cal, it ain’t ‘slander’ if it’s written.

    It’s libel, ask jacko why he’s projecting again.

  5. The uglier these mailers get, the more I see the candidates targeted are the real problems for Democrats and RINOs.
    Anyone who knows Joe knows these are absolutely going against everyting Joe is, does, believes in, etc.

    Actionable sure, but all of these mailers are anonymous and that’s illegal. Hey McClellan protests too much. These could be from her and Franks? Kind of has their brand of sleazy politics all over it.

  6. I thought the Supreme Court ruled that political campaign speech is exempt from defamation.
    That’s how I think they can say anything and get away with it.
    Is that right? Anyone a lawyer out there who can clear this up?

  7. But Pelosi said Trump was a David Duke Republican.

    When’s Jacko come up with a mailer claiming Tirio is: 1) Benito Mussolini’s great grand-child?

    2) A Russian mole, who’s real name is ‘Alexander Ivanovich
    Kushilov, or Grushilov” born in Omsk?

    3) a secret phillumenist?

    4) ex-fiance of Cyndi Lauper, causing her to become a lesbian
    after a stormy, public break up in ’79?

    5) a breeder of armadilloes WITHOUT STATE LICENSE

  8. Fake news.

    McHenry’s weasel, sometimes called the Jackal/Jacko.

    The two go together.

    Lyin’ postacards by the pound;
    Not a gram of Truth.
    That’s the way the dark money goes
    Pop goes the Jackal.
    Ha ha, yeah
    Half a pound of tuppenny rice
    Half a pound of treacle
    That’s the way the dark money goes
    Pop goes the weasel

    Every night, when I go out
    The Jacko’s on the table.
    Take a stick and knock it off
    Pop goes the weasel!

    Up and down Rt. 14 he goes
    In and out of megalomania.
    That’s the way the money goes
    Pop goes the weasel!

    But the peasants rose up one fine June day,
    and took their pitchforks from the hay.
    Using the bloodhounds they ferreted out
    the stinking weasel, and by it’s snout,
    pop goes the weasel!

  9. Surely, the Illinois Integrity Fund has spent well over $10k on all of these mailings.

    Has anyone filed a complaint with the State’s Attorney or the Illinois State Board of Elections?

    The IIF might have covered their tracks well, but it couldn’t hurt to serve a subpoena on Breaker Press to try to find out who has been paying for these mailings.

  10. To state a legally cognizable claim for defamation, a plaintiff must present facts showing that the defendant made a false statement about the plaintiff, the defendant made an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party, and that this publication caused damages. Solaia Technology, 221 Ill. 2d at 579. A defamatory statement is a statement that harms a person’s reputation to the extent it lowers the person in the eyes of the community or deters the community from associating with her or him. Id. A statement is defamatory per se if its harm is obvious and apparent on its face. Id. In Illinois, there are five categories of statements that are considered defamatory per se: (1) words that impute a person has committed a crime, (2) words that impute a person is infected with a loathsome communicable disease, (3) words that impute a person is unable to perform or lacks integrity in performing her or his employment duties, (4) words that impute a person lacks ability or otherwise prejudices that person in her or his profession, and (5) words that impute a person has engaged in adultery or fornication. Id. at 57980; see also Van Horne v. Muller, 185 Ill. 2d 299, 307 (1998); Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77, 88-89 (1996). A statement that is defamatory per se is not actionable if it is reasonably capable of an innocent construction. Solaia Technology, 221 Ill. 2d at 580.
    ¶ 23 Moreover, even if a statement is defamatory per se and not subject to an innocent construction, the statement may enjoy constitutional protection under the first amendment if it is the expression of an opinion that does not state or imply an assertion of fact which is provably false. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 19-22; Solaia Technology, 221 Ill. 2d at 581. “[T]here is no artificial distinction between opinion and fact” because “a false assertion of fact can be
    8
    defamatory even when couched within apparent opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.” Solaia Technology, 221 Ill. 2d at 581; see also Dubinsky v. United Airlines Master Executive Council, 303 Ill. App. 3d 317, 324 (1999) (“expressions of opinion may often imply an assertion of objective fact and, in such cases, would be considered actionable”); Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 1819, 21; Bryson, 174 Ill. 2d at 99-100. However, a defamatory statement is constitutionally protected if it “cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating actual fact.” Solaia Technology, 221 Ill. 2d at 581. In other words, a statement is constitutionally protected if does not contain an assertion that is “sufficiently factual to be susceptible to being proven true or false.” Bryson, 174 Ill. 2d at 100.
    ¶ 24 These first amendment protections apply where the defamation claim is brought by a public official or a public figure, or where the claim is brought by a private individual against a media defendant. Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo’s Designer Direct, Inc., 227 Ill. 2d 381, 399 (2008). Our supreme court has yet to determine whether these constitutional protections also apply where, as here, a private party has allegedly defamed another private party on a matter of public or private concern. Id.; see also Stone v. Paddock Publications, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 093386, ¶ 27; Missner v. Clifford, 393 Ill. App. 3d 751, 769 (2009). However, in Imperial Apparel, our supreme court identified several benefits of extending the constitutional privilege to private defendants, including (1) achieving consistent outcomes where a plaintiff seeks recovery from both a media defendant and private individuals based on the same communication and (2) reducing ambiguity as to whether a particular communication is actionable, thereby minimizing fear of liability and self-censorship that would “chill the free flow of protected expression.” Imperial Apparel, 227 Ill. 2d at 400. Our supreme court also reasoned that extending constitutional protection to private defendants “recognizes that the inherent worth of speech in
    9
    terms of its capacity for informing the public is not dependent on the status of the defendant who publishes it.” Id.
    ¶ 25 Like the First District in Stone, we find these considerations persuasive. See Stone, 2011 IL App (1st) 093386, ¶ 28. Following Stone, we hold that the first amendment privilege applies to allegedly defamatory communications made by private defendants where the standards prescribed in Milkovich and Solaia Technology, LLC are met.1
    ¶ 26 As noted, the test for determining whether a statement is protected from defamation claims under the first amendment is whether it can reasonably be interpreted as stating actual fact. Imperial Apparel, 227 Ill. 2d at 398. In applying this test, we are guided by several criteria:
    (1) whether the statement has a precise and readily understood meaning, (2) whether the statement is verifiable, and (3) whether the statement’s literary or social context signals that it has factual content. Id.; see also Solaia Technology, 221 Ill. 2d at 581; Mittelman, 135 Ill. 2d at 243; Pompa v. Swanson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120911, ¶ 22. The statement is evaluated from the perspective of an ordinary reader. Imperial Apparel, 227 Ill. 2d at 398. Whether or not a statement is a factual assertion that could give rise to a defamation claim is a question of law for the court. Id.

  11. Above was taken from an appeals brief.
    I’m not an attorney.

    I have read that the higher standard for defamation suits in political campaigns relates to this specifically:
    That the party making defamatory statements had to have prior knowledge that such statements are false.

  12. This garbage might only help those it intends to hurt.
    I’ve learned that many voters vote purely on name recognition regardless of the reason.

  13. Tonya could’ve kicked both their weak asses. But yes that is the self-loathing sleaze ball that Franks is.

  14. He knows Cal was exonerated, the case was denied after his ex lied and kidnapped their daughter and fled the country.
    Cal actually won custody. He would have gotten his daughter back from US Marshalls had they returned to the US before she turned 18.
    Franks is an entitled prick who thinks no one should run against him or ever question him. Equivalent to a fat obnoxious school yard bully who can’t run on his record, so he tries to intimidate and slander others.

  15. We voted for everyone that the Illinois Integrety Fund is slamming. Figure if they’re slamming them they must be good. We fully support Tirio. He’s doing an amazing job. Wouldn’t have normally voted for Schuster and Brettman but did because of these mailers. If the great Jackass is against them we’re all for them.

  16. How is it possible there were credible accounts against Cal and he was not prosecuted?

    Who are the people referenced in the document?

    This mailer raises more questions than it answers……

  17. These mailers are the same as Mary McClellan mailers. Same font same lay out same size same union bug both missing “a copy of this report is filled with the board of elections”,. Am I the only one that sees this?

  18. Slander is weak and childish. Post the legal proof showing it was all a lie and sue people like this nimrod spreading those rumors. If all else fails make stuff up about them. When in Rome right?

  19. @Mark S – Maybe you are on to something….

    @Camp Lake – How was Cal exonerated? The above mailer has some sort of testimony with the allegation from a “Mr. Geist” AND his wife. This is incredibly troubling given this happened in 1983 and, at the time, Cal would have been an elected official. How did he suppress this testimony?

    Very troubling…..

    He knows Cal was exonerated, the case was denied after his ex lied and kidnapped their daughter and fled the country.
    Cal actually won custody. He would have gotten his daughter back from US Marshalls had they returned to the US before she turned 18.
    Franks is an entitled prick who thinks no one should run against him or ever question him. Equivalent to a fat obnoxious school yard bully who can’t run on his record, so he tries to intimidate and slander others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *