History of Joe Tirio Illinois Integrity Fund Defamation Case Included in Latest Court Document, Judge Delays Action Until after the Election

Note that Joe Tirio attorney Phil Prossnitz prevailed against Jack Franks attorney Natalie Harris in both the 2nd Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court.

I figured that Harris would win in the Supreme Court because of its majority of Democratic Party Justices.

But its decision came down after House Speaker Mike Madigan released the subpoena about Jack Franks from the Illinois State Police.

As the Chicago Sun-Times reported, is

Illinois State Police justified the search because “probable cause exists for the crimes of

  • criminal sexual abuse,
  • criminal sexual assault,
  • official misconduct,
  • stalking and aggravated battery.”

Police requested personnel, human resources or other files “containing information related to allegations of wrongdoing or misconduct by former Illinois State Representative Jack D. Franks.”

The news spread statewide, even to NBC television station WGEM in Quincy, where there is a hot Supreme Court contest to oust a Mike Madigan-financed Justice in an area which has a Republican congressman.

Qiincy WGEM-TV screen shot.

But, past my speculation and onto the case summary and arguments in the latest Joe Tirio filing:

Introduction

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the petition for leave to appeal in Tirio vs. Dalton and Breaker Press 125442 was improvidently granted, it is denied and the appeal was dismissed in an order filed September 17, 2020.

The Appellate Court, Second District ruled on May 19, 2020 that the trial court was correct in declining to grant Jack D. Franks’ (hereinafter Franks) Motion to Stay Proceedings in the case.

Nevertheless, the trial court in its July 13, 2020 Order ruled it will stay further proceedings in the lawsuit until the Appellate Court rules on the propriety of the trial court

1. holding Franks in indirect civil contempt for his failure to answer discovery,

2. providing a purge provision to Franks’ if he answers the outstanding written discovery and

3. ordering a per diem sanction.

Plaintiff requests this trial court remove that portion of the July 13, 2020 Order staying proceedings pending the outcome of the Appellate Court’s review of these issues in light of the Appellate Court affirming the
correctness of lifting the discovery stay and the Illinois Supreme Court ruling the petition for leave to appeal should never have been granted.

An Analogous Set of Facts

[Assume] Jack Franks owns Franks Paper Mill.

Joseph Tirio files an injunction seeking the affirmatively relief that Franks perform an act – in this hypothetical, turn off a pipe which Tirio alleges is polluting a stream.

The trial court grants Franks’ request for a stay and the paper mill is not required to perform the affirmative act of turning off the pipe.

The trial court thereafter decides to lift the stay and further orders Franks to turn off the pipe.

Franks takes an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court
Rule 307 (a)(1) which allows him to take an interlocutory appeal from an order of court granting, dissolving or modifying an injunction.

The Appellate Court affirms the trial court’s lifting of the stay.

Implicit in that Appellate Court ruling is the affirming of the trial court’s subsequent order that the pipe be turned off.

Franks nevertheless refuses to turn off the pipe.

Tirio then files a Rule to Show Cause which the trial court grants and holds Franks in indirect civil contempt for his failure to comply with the trial court’s order which lifted the stay and ordered Franks to turn off the pipe.

The trial court also offers a purge provision (turn off the pipe) and
assesses a per diem penalty.

Franks files a second interlocutory appeal in which he challenges whether the trial court erred in finding Franks in contempt for not turning off the pipe, providing a purge provision and assessing a per diem penalty.

Despite the Appellate Court ruling affirming the lifting of the stay the trial court refuses to enforce its own orders and once again stays the proceedings until the Appellate Court rules on these last issues.

The obvious question is given the Appellate Court’s ruling affirming the lifting of the stay, why should the trial court wait on these collateral and inconsequential matters before enforcing its own ruling lifting the stay?

The Instant Case

The Appellate Court decision cannot be read to affirm the lifting of the stay on discovery, but not require discovery proceed.

  1. On February 27, 2020 the trial court denied Franks’ Motion to Stay Proceedings and further ordered that certain discovery be answered. Franks filed an interlocutory appeal and the Appellate Court in a Summary Order filed May 19, 2020 affirmed the trial court refusing to grant Franks’ Motion to Stay Proceedings in the case.
  2. Pursuant to an Order filed May 21, 2020 Franks was held in indirect civil contempt for failure to comply with this Court’s February 27, 2020 Order pertaining to his failure to answer written discovery and assessed a per diem fine.
  3. On July 13, 2020 the trial court ruled that the contempt order is a “friendly contempt” order and reduced the per diem sanction to $50.00 for day and further ordered the contempt order and enforcement of the per diem were to be “stayed pending outcome of the appeals to the Second District Court of Appeals (No. 2-20-0351).
  4. Tirio is requesting this trial court reconsider that ruling staying the proceedings.
  5. Though Franks portrays himself as a “warrior” defending the First Amendment, no trial or appeals court that have looked at this case have accepted that argument. The specific and false allegation that Joe Tirio had a secret taxpayer funded slush fund from which he was taking vacations and hiring cronies has repeatedly been held to be nothing
    more than defamatory and libelous speech which is not protected by the Constitution.
  6. This trial court must enforce its own rulings and move this case forward.
  7. The ability of a court that has imposed a fine upon a person for contempt to imprison him until the fine and costs are paid can be traced in Illinois to at least 1857. The Illinois Supreme Court in Brown v. The People, 19 Ill. 613, 1858 WL 5998 (Ill.), 9 Peck (IL) 613 ruled a justice of the peace who has imposed a fine upon a person for a contempt of his court can imprison him until the fine and costs are paid. The Supreme Court
    ruled:
    The only question in this case is, whether a justice of the
    peace, who has imposed a fine for a contempt of his court, can
    imprison the party till the fine and costs are paid. Of this power we
    have no doubt. Such a power is indispensable to the proper
    administration of justice in these as well as all other courts. The
    statute has authorized justices’ courts to impose a fine of five dollars
    for contempts, and to this extent it may be considered a limitation
    upon their power to fine for contempts, and it may even be held to
    take away the right to imprison directly for contempts; but, surely, it
    could never have been the intention of the legislature, to limit the
    power of these courts to enforce the collection of such fines by the
    well-known modes previously practiced for the collection of such
    fines, and which is allowed for the collection of all other fines. It is a
    rule of the common law, that all courts of justice possess the power
    to protect themselves from contempts, by fine and imprisonment,
    and this was intended to be limited and regulated, in justices’ courts,
    rather than taken away. Should we hold that the only means these
    courts have of protecting themselves is by imposing fines and
    issuing ordinary executions to collect them, we might as well at once
    close the doors of these courts altogether. It is no protection at all
    against all the worthless and irresponsible vagabonds who may come or be brought into the presence of these tribunals. [ Brown v. The People, supra, 19 Ill. 613, at 19 Ill. 615.]
One the the Illinois Integrity Fund’s mailings to smear Joe Tirio.s reputation by saying he has “A secret taxpayer funded slush fund.”

The Court noted, “It was within the power of the justice, and it was his duty, to imprison the party guilty of contempt, till the fine and costs were paid. We affirm the judgment, without a moment’s hesitation. Judgment affirmed.” [ Brown v. The People, supra, 19 Ill. 613, at 19 Ill. 615.] The law regarding enforcing a court order remains the same in 2020.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph J. Tirio prays for the entry of an Order amending the Order of July 13, 2020 striking the language, “and it is stayed pending outcome of the appeals to the Second District Court of Appeals (No. 2-20-0351) and for such other relief as this court deems fair and reasonable.

= = = = =

Kane County Judge Kevin Busch’s decision follows:

= = = = =

The Judge’s decision, obviously, protects Franks from any pre-election negative publicity for actions that took place more than about two years, seven months ago.


Comments

History of Joe Tirio Illinois Integrity Fund Defamation Case Included in Latest Court Document, Judge Delays Action Until after the Election — 15 Comments

  1. So the ‘Judge” got political and decided to delay justice for an election.

    He played his hand.

    GET A NEW JUDGE!

  2. Seems like this blog helps the defaming that IIF did by continuing to print this flier that has been deemed defamatory.

  3. One picture worth thousand words—Franks props his dirty shoe on the top of a seat with women all around him..arrogant, power, sexist puke move.

  4. Prossnitz somehow managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    And the eel-like Franks slipped through his fingers.

    Maybe next time.

  5. Lorna is right.

    Why is this blog continuing the defamation of Tirio?

    If it was wrong for Jackanapes & Co., it’s wrong above, too.

    And if Tirio OKs it, then he’s just like the negros who screech like primates in a zoo when the N word is used in letters by Abe Lincoln, books by Mark Twain, and sportscasters and coaches in unguarded moments, but use it themselves a thousand times a day to their negro pals.

  6. this is all so UFB…doesn’t anyone see the big picture here?…

    all of the defamatory Ads against Tirio .Brettman and Schuster all appeared on the very same day, a front page NWH headline story broke…

    the newspaper has to be ready to deliver the paper to coincide with the mailing….

    this is a massive undertaking and whoever is in charge is well experienced in mass mailing and direct marketing as are most printers

    then the night before elections with nothing else to do, The NWH comes out with a front page story about Provansano that was 7 months old………

    we have Jack Franks….the Northwest Herald…and Breaker Press…………….and I go HUmm

  7. Matteson is right, it was all a coordinated scam hatched via a conspiracy.

    Franks is going down. Even his wife wants out and to be very far away from him.

    It’s time the County divorce Franks, and stops the long abuse.

  8. According to WIKI:

    “Justice delayed is justice denied” is a legal maxim. It means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all.

    This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal system, because of the unfairness for the injured party who sustained the injury having little hope for timely and effective remedy and resolution. The phrase has become a rallying cry for legal reformers who view courts, tribunals, judges, arbitrators, administrative law judges, commissions[A] or governments as acting too slowly in resolving legal issues — either because the case is too complex, the existing system is too complex or overburdened, or because the issue or party in question lacks political favour. Individual cases may be impacted by judicial hesitancy to make a decision. Statutes and court rules have tried to control the tendency; and judges may be subject to oversight and even discipline for persistent failures to timely decide matters, or accurately report their backlog. When a court takes a matter “under advisement” – awaiting the issuance of a judicial opinion, order or judgement and forestalls final adjudication of a lawsuit or resolution of a motion – the issue of timeliness of the decision(s) comes into play.

Leave a Reply

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