Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

April 16, 2024

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

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On August 31, 2016

DuPage County, IL. (ECWd) –

Defendant Claire Ball 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, she 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, require the Circuit Court to grant her motion under the CPA, and other relief as justly entitled.

Read the petitions below:

[gview file=””]


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


1 Comment
  • mark misiorowski
    Posted at 18:49h, 01 September

    Dear Sir/Madam:

    Why was Ms. Ball sued? Was it because she was interviewed by a member of the press and asked about her qualifications? Was she asked to comment about governmental affairs? If so, consider this important teaching from the US Supreme Court.

    “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social change desired by the people. Although First Amendment protections are not confined to the exposition of ideas,..there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs…of course including discussions of candidates…This no more than reflects our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open. In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential, for the identities of those who are elected will inevitably shape the course we follow as a nation…As the Court noted in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy,…it can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.” Buckley v. Valeo

    Best of Luck Ms. Ball.