The second part of this analysis from Illinois Leaks, reprinted with permission:

McHenry County Circuit Judge Candidate Mary McClellan files Amended Verified 224 petition

Having read hundreds of cases on defamation and what does or does not rise to the level of defamation I am of the opinion the actual statements made do not meet the well-established criteria to qualify as an actionable statement. 

The first indicator is the fact she failed to actually quote the statement in the pleading.

The statement in question, “Attempting to collect unemployment benefits while receiving WC benefits is FRAUD” is true or substantially true.

Note it did not say Gill committed fraud by collecting unemployment benefits.

The comment is not what McClellan told the court.

In fact, it said nothing about Gill collecting anything but rather pointed to a true statement that attempting to collect such benefits together, unemployment and workers compensation, is a fraud.

She continued the misinformation with this statement:

49. The published comments allege that Petitioner Gil was caught in a fraudulent collection of benefits and lead readers to infer that he committed a crime.

There was no claim Gil was caught in a fraudulent “collection” of benefits.

There was a simple statement that attempting to collect those benefits together is a fraud. 

While the entire statement that was posted may infer what she claims with some readers, others, like us, infer something quite different because we know there was no allegation of anyone collecting anything. 

The well-established rule of innocent construction must be applied and when doing so in this case, we find the statement to not be actionable.

More false statements?

59. Respondent Shamhart is solely responsible for the publication of these statements in her petition and their subsequent publication in related news articles covering the action.

McClellan appears to be saying information in a filing before the court that may be false is grounds to file suit for defamation if the news media publishes the public record.

Let that sink in.

She claims to be protected under the Whistleblower act then makes a claim and provides a citation of the law.

The law conflicts with what she said.

78. Petitioner McClellan is protected under the Illinois Whistle blowers reward and protection act. “Whistle blower” protects persons that report, or threaten to report, wrongdoing, provide information or testify regarding wrongdoing, or assist in the enforcement of the Ethics Act. Retaliation against a person for reporting or providing of information of wrongdoing is strictly prohibited by the Ethics Act and may result in a violation of State law (740 ILCS 174/20.2)

The actual Law she cites:

(740 ILCS 174/20.2)
Sec. 20.2. Threatening retaliation. An employer may not threaten any employee with any act or omission if that act or omission would constitute retaliation against the employee under this Act.

McClellan is not an employee of these people so not sure how she thinks the law she cited would apply to her. 

More interesting is the claim of retaliation against a person for reporting or providing information on wrongdoing is strictly prohibited by the Ethics Act, which she fails to point to an actual statute. 

A simple word search of the entire Ethics Act only points to “prohibited” one time and in that case, and in that one case it has nothing to do with anything remotely close to the case at hand. 

To claim the Ethics Act prohibits retaliation appears to be a false statement.

In point #59, as shown above, she specifically stated, Shamhart is “solely” responsible for the publication of the statements. 

Square that with #80.

80. On information and belief, Respondents Lisa Shamhart and Joe Tirio are responsible for the publication of these comments.

So what should the courts believe? 

Shamhart is “solely” responsible or Shamhart and Tirio are responsible? 

One claim directly conflicts with the other.

There are numerous other troubling statements in this filing and we will update on those matters in a future article as we are awaiting certain records that we believe will expose much bigger problems for McClellan and her court filings.

Remember, she is a candidate for Judge.

You can download the petition at this link.