Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

May 22, 2024

'Hybrid Motion'?

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On January 9, 2014

For months I raised the issue of constitutionality as it relates to the actions taken by the County Board, which at the time, included two resolutions stripping former Chairman Chris Patrick of certain mandated duties, and Mr. Patrick’s recusal letter.  In a nut shell, Patrick put his self interests ahead of the voters.  First coverage of that case can be found here.
Now, 7 months later, the Redwood Law firm has their response to Edgar County State’s Attorney Mark Isaf’s motion to dismiss the case brought forward by 9 Edgar County Citizens and it is quite a response.

“This ‘hybrid motion’ has been consistently criticized.  Reviewing courts have long disapproved of this slipshod practice as it causes unnecessary complication and confusion.”  (Text on page 4 of the Redwood Filing)

“As the State’s Attorney for the County of Edgar, it is the duty of Attorney Isaf to prosecute crimes, including Class A misdemeanors, such as the one alleged to have been committed by defendant Patrick in this complaint.” (Text on page 7 of the Redwood Filing)

Has a law firm now taken the State’s Attorney to task with the language contained in their response?  Two words come to my mind when I read their response: SPOT ON!
For all those interested in your government and seeing it in operation first hand please attend the oral argument on this motion January 16th at 1:30 before Judge Glenn in the Edgar County Court House.



Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • ECWDogs
    Posted at 21:46h, 09 January

    ‘Hybrid Motion’?

  • old
    Posted at 23:20h, 09 January

    If Isaf is being called on this matter, what other things will he be held accountable for? Maybe we need a new S.A., any good, honest, upstanding attorney’s in Paris we can trust to always do the right thing.