Chicago Tribune Writes of Tirio Smear Postcards Connection to Jack Franks Posted on 12/22/2018 by Cal SkinnerDecember 27, 2018 From the Chicago Tribune: SUBURBS Chicago Dem operatives tied to McHenry County chairman behind ‘Crooked Joe’ flyers, printer says under threat of jail Joe Tirio’s enemy photo shopped him at a robber with rubber gloves.
The fine citizens of McHenry County that have been duped all these years by ice cream bars being passed out at parades now see the true evil face of the Fat Punk who has deceived them.
This is great.
To those that said Tirio didn’t have a case, you’re fired!
Prossnitz not only knew better but fought against a very high priced law firm that couldn’t seal the deal (or the identity of those involved in defaming a good man)
Happy for Joe Tirio and for the McHenry County court system coming thru for justice.
Does anyone kind of feel bad for Breaker Press?
Lying thieves got them involved in this, when they were just trying to conduct the business of printing.
The lawyers representing Dalton and Breaker Press were really working for IL Integrity Sham.
Must’ve finally sunk in when that poor sucker realized he may be going to jail and the guilty parties he was protecting would be out yucking it up over bourbon and cigars in celebration of their anonymity.
But maybe they paid him a handsome sum to zip his lip but he figured it wasn’t worth being jailed for?
At least he didn’t lie under oath.
That Dalton woman is bankrupt financially and morally.
‘Bet’ I know what she did with her lump sum. One armed push ups at the slot machines.
Is it possible Breaker Press or Dalton’s troubles aren’t over?
and next time their legal fees won’t be picked up by IL Integrity Sham?
As I see it, there’s still lots to unveil.
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
Although other similar mailings were almost as scurrilous, this one against Joe was a “sleaze too far.”
There was no “secret tax payer funded slush fund” in the Recorders office.
There was an automation fund designed to help upgrade and update automation systems as the need inevitably arose.
This was put together by Joe’s predecessor, who had held that office for two decades, and which was disclosed to and approved by the County Board in open meetings each and every year.
Even if Joe had wanted to get rid of that fund, which would have been inadvisable, he couldn’t have done so.
Although libel law is very liberal with regard to “public figures” there is a limit.
Completely false statements can be actionable.
We may want to ask now, why Franks had it in for Joe so much, even to the extent that he provoked a walkout by previously obliging Board Members when he inappropriately tried to grill Joe in an open Board session right before the General Election.
Is he worried that upon taking over the Clerk’s office, Joe may find out about past election irregularities that McClelland, who District 150 supported when she ran for the office, may have not disclosed?
I remember when there was a special board meeting called because Franks was trying to privatize the County Nursing Home behind the board’s back.
Some county board members thought The Edgar County Watchdogs ‘crossed the line’ when they stated that ‘Jack Franks was the worst kind of politician that should never be able to be in elected office.’
IL Leaks had also revealed that Franks lied on an official document under oath in his Statement of Economic Interest.
Wonder what they think now that they’ve had a chance to get to know him s little better?
So much for that “Civility Award” he got.
Give it back, Franks!
You don’t deserve such an award!
That Civility Award was phony and orchestrated awarded to him by his friend.
McHenry Times investigated it and found it was never given out before so there was no record of who in the past had received the award and why.
When asked to comment on it, the one awarding it to Franks admitted he was a friend of Franks.
It appeared as tho the award was invented by Franks so he could have a press release and set himself up as a good and ‘civil’ guy.
This was because the story broke about the IL Integrity Fund not being truthful or an actual Political entity or able to be reached in any way.
The NWHerald was sniffing around and asked Franks if he had any knowledge of this group because so many suspected it smelled of his antics.
When he publicly praised the group and endorsed their lies, that was a tip off.
He was praising himself!!!
Guess everyone knows what that ‘Civility Award’ was all about now!
I’m sure Franks wants to get his hands on the Recorder’s automation fund.
Tirio was careful not to blow through it, but Franks would like to!
A public figure must prove three things in order to prevail in a defamation suit.
1) A false statement was made about him/her.
2) The false statement harmed his/her reputation.
3) The statement was made with actual malice – ie the person making the false statement knew that it was false or showed reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false.
Condition #3 is a special requirement for defamation suits filed by public figures, and it’s the hardest condition to prove – it’s why very few public figures go to the trouble of filing.
In this particular instance, I think Joe Tirio has a good case. It would have been quite simple for “The Illinois Integrity Fund” to ascertain that Mr Tirio did not have a secret slush fund and did not use it to hire 4 cronies, but they chose to send mailings accusing him of these things anyways.
BB, it is not necessary in Illinois to prove (2.) damages, damages are assumed in defamation cases.
Malice is a gimme with defendants who are professional political public relations managers; the equivalent of ‘sophisticated investors’.
Susan, a false statement is only defamatory if it harms a person’s reputation.
If I said that Jack Franks is the most honest politician in Illinois, he wouldn’t get anywhere if he sued me for slander even though most people would believe that to be a false statement.
Proving actual malice is not a gimme; it can be very difficult.
The plaintiff basically has to get inside the defendant’s head and prove that he acted with actual malice.
The U.S. Supreme Court defined actual malice as a defendant’s publication of a statement either
1) knowing it was false; or
2) exercising reckless disregard for the truth
That leaves a whole lot of grey area for repeating unverified rumors and the like.
If a defendant believes that his false statement is true, he will prevail in a defamation suit against a public figure.
The IIF messed up because they made specific allegations in their mailing that could have been easily disproved if they had performed a minimal amount of research.
This passes all the tests.
Billy Bob ….. is this libelous “Jacko Franks is an ‘honest’ politician.”
It would certainly be libelous to any honest politician to be compared to Jack Franks, but honest politicians are notoriously difficult to find.