The court case that Joe Tirio has filed against Breaker Press, the printer of postcards designed to nominate GOP opponent Janice Dalton County Clerk and, non-coincidentally, help the fall campaign of Democrat Andrew Giorgi, gets stranger and stranger.
The suspense of what will happen next must have Tirio and his supporters on the edge of their seats.
It might be compared to that of children waiting for Santa Claus’ appearance.
Will it be the requested gift or a lump of coal?
Maybe a comparison to what will happen on the next episode of Dowton Abby is more apt.
Today, there is a court hearing at 1:30 where Associate Judge Kevin Costello will decide the penalty to be imposed on Breaker Press’ President and Dalton.
Tirio attorney Philip Prossnitz is asking for jail.
Natalie Harris, representing not only Breaker Press and Dalton, but now also the Illinois Integrity Fund, wants a fine of $1 and permission to delay revealing the person(s) behind the hit pieces until after consideration by the 2nd Appellate Court in Elgin.
Now comes a new tactic.
Harris has filed paperwork for “John Doe,” who states, in part,
- I am competent to testify to the matters stated in this affidavit based on my own personal knowledge.
- The Illinois Integrity Fund is the name adopted by the group responsible for creating and paying Breaker Press, Co., Inc. to print and mail the flyers…
- I am part of the Illinois Integrity Fund that authorized and directed the creation, printing and mailing of the Flyers.
- I have authority to act on behalf of the Illinois Integrity Fund.
- I hereby authorize attorney Natalie A. Harris to accept service of process on my behalf and on behalf of the Illinois Integrity Fund in connection with any purported defamation claims referenced in, or arising from, the facts alleged in Joseph Tirio’s 4/25/18 Rule 224 petition and subsequent amendments.
John Doe argues,
For the foregoing reasons, the IIF Intervenors respectfully request that this Court grant their Petition for Leave to Intervene for the purposes of joining in Respondents’ response to the Rule.
Friendly contempt has been consistently upheld as the proper mechanism to test discovery disclosure orders on appeal, rendering friendly contempt the accepted form of contempt in the situation presented here.
Use of incarceration as a sanction to coerce disclosure has been reversed as too draconian a sanction—and in light of the First Amendment rights implicated here, such severity is inappropriate and unnecessary.