College of DuPage

Andrzejewski Petitions to Appeal Denial of CPA Motion in Burkhart v. ECWI et al –

DuPage County, IL. (ECWd) –

Adam Andrzejewski has Petitioned the 2nd Appellate Court for leave to appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court  Rule 306(a)(9) – from an order of the circuit court denying a motion to dispose under the Citizen Participation Act (735 ILCS 110/1 et seq.)“.

The petition comes from the final order of the circuit court denying a motion to dispose of the suit under the Citizen Participation Act (“CPA”).

In the Petition, he asked for a granting of the petition, to be allowed to file a brief in support of it, reverse the Circuit Court’s denial of the CPA, and other relief as justly entitled.

Read the petition(s) below:

[gview file=”http://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/160829-COD-Burkhart-AA-Petition-for-Leave-to-Appeal-Appdx.pdf”]

[gview file=”http://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/160829-COD-Burkhart-AA-Supporting-Record.pdf”]

3 replies »

  1. Dear Sir/Madam:

    “The First Amendment protects political association as well as political expression. The constitutional right of association explicated in NAACP v. Alabama…stemmed from the Court’s recognition that effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association. Subsequent decisions have made clear that the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas, a freedom that encompasses the right to associate with the political party of one’s choice.” Buckley v. Valeo.

    This holding from our nation’s highest court green lighted all Illinois citizens who “associated with” and supported the COD Clean Slate Team…More importantly, the pronouncements expatiated in Buckley v. Valeo also protects Mr. Andrzejewski.

    Good Luck Mr. Andrzejewski.

  2. It is my sincere hope that both Carla Burkhart and her attorney Joshua Feagans and his firm Griffin Williams all end up being hit with severe financial sanctions for participating in this SLAPP. Mr. Feagans, in my opinion, should at the very least have his law license suspended if not outright revoked. This is one of the most egregious SLAPPs I have seen and it is my opinion that the Griffin Williams firm took on a case that they knew they would never win, but just wanted Ms. Burkhart’s money. Clearly, Ms. Burkhart is not an intelligent woman based on her actions and she sought out and unfortunately found attorneys in Mr. Feagans and Griffin Williams who would do whatever she wanted as long as her check cleared. For SLAPPs to stop, bad attorneys like Mr. Feagans and his firm need to have a consequence for deciding to file a SLAPP. I hope the appellate court decides to make an example of Mr. Feagans and Ms. Burkhart to deter future SLAPPs.

    • Under Supreme Court rule 137, Burkhart’s cause of action is not actionable. However, the judge is a much more serious problem than a couple minor bit lawyers. And yes it is exactly lawyers like Burkhart’s that give the other intelligent lawyers the “slimeball” moniker.

Leave a witty comment