feature

From the Illinois Supreme Court!

January 17, 2013   ·   3 Comments

image_pdfimage_print

Had I found this information yesterday I would have definitely included it in the coverage of the states advised potential Conflict of Interest for Chris Patrick found here, here and here.

As referenced in Attorney General Opinion S-518,  The Illinois Supreme Court makes it VERY CLEAR!

  PEOPLE v. ADDUCI
412 Ill. 621 (1952)
Supreme Court of Illinois.

“The interest against which the prohibition is leveled is such an interest as prevents or tends to prevent the public official from giving to the public that impartial and faithful service which he is in duty bound to render and which the public has every right to demand and receive. Not every interest is a bad or corrupt interest. The desire of every public official to serve the public faithfully necessarily requires him to take a keen interest in the affairs of his office and the prohibition is manifestly not leveled against this interest.”

Take that statement and dissect it and its very clear.  Recusal from discussions and voting does not eliminate a conflict of interest based on Illinois Supreme Courts interpretation of the state statute!

The interest against which the prohibition is leveled is such an interest that:

  • Prevents or tends to prevent the public official from giving to the public that impartial and faithful services which he is in duty bound to render and which the public has every right to demand and receive.

Mr. Patrick cannot provide faithful service if he puts his financial interest ahead of his duty to serve the very office he was elected to, which is what is happening by removing himself from all discussions and voting on matters as they relate to his personal business.

The interest against which the prohibition is leveled is such an interest that PREVENTS the official from giving the public his impartial and faithful service.  Recusal PREVENTS him from those required duties.

Another factor is the fact that if a tie vote occurred on a matter related to this subject, he is required by statute to provide the tie breaking vote, of which he could not do based on his recusal, thus again, he is not able to provide the faithful service he is duty bound to render because of his personal interests taking president over his duties.

  •  Recusal from discussions pertaining to county business fails to provide the faithful service he is duty bound to render and which the public has every right to demand and receive!
  • Recusal from voting on matters pertaining to county business fails to provide the faithful service he is duty bound to render and which the public has every right to demand and receive!
  • Chris Patrick cannot serve the public faithfully, as is necessarily required and specifically stated by the Illinois Supreme Court, when he is void of the ability to take a keen interest in the affairs of his office because of his recusal.  A recusal based on his interest in making money from affairs directly tied to the very public body he is duty bound to serve!

  This information has been provided to the State IDOT officials as well as Mark Isaf, the Edgar County States Attorney.

I am hopeful that upon review of the case law, appropriate steps will be taken to remove any and all conflicts of interest that Chris Patrick may be subject to. 

Conflict Supreme court Article

By

Tags: , , , , , , , ,


Readers Comments (3)

  1. hahahaa says:

    Keep trying. Looks like somebodys wrong again lol its gotta be disheartening
    that you are wrong so often in your life.

     Reply
    • jmkraft says:

      Sounds like you are counting your chickens before they hatch.

       Reply




Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.