Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

May 29, 2024

BREAKING – Illinois Appellate Prosecutor Chief Deputy Director Memorandum VERY problematic for Governor Pritzker

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On April 24, 2020

Illinois (ECWd) –

We are of the opinion the Memorandum we obtained today is a game-changer for Illinois and a clear shot across the bow of Governor Pritzker’s Executive Order.

From day one we have questioned the overreach and legality of elements of the Executive Orders and now it appears all of our positions have been validated by the Chief Deputy Director of the Illinois Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, David J. Robinson in his memorandum to the Director of that office.

We greatly appreciate that finally a legal analysis is provided with clear language, case law, and supporting footnotes to support the legal position as to how our laws are to be applied.  We thank him for confirming many of the very arguments we presented in numerous articles covering Governor Pritzkers Executive Orders.

The entire document is a MUST read and can be downloaded here or viewed below.

Some Key points are as follows:

  • A cursory review of the EO (and extension) reveal clear – although potentially justified – infringements on the constitutional rights of Illinois citizens.
  • Article I, §23 also specifically accounts for citizen’s being responsible for their actions to preserve liberty, as follows: “A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities.” Implicit in §23 is idea that emergencies may require adherence to individual responsibility rather than suspension of Constitutional rights. Implicit in §23 is idea that emergencies may require adherence to individual responsibility rather than suspension of Constitutional rights.
  • To that end, Article V (The Executive) does not provide emergency powers to suspend constitutional rights, nor does Article XII (Militia) permit the Governor to organize the militia except to “enforce the laws, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion.” This is likely why the Governor has taken the position he has taken regarding enforcement, as well as why he did not cite any constitutional authority in the E0.8

“The Governor cites several sections of the Emergency Management Act (20 ILCS 3305/7(1),(2,)(8),(10},(12} (Emergency Powers of the Governor) as authority for the EO. Putting aside the axiom that statutory law may not supersede the constitutional rights of citizens, other problems exist here as well.”

  • And finally, the Act appears to provide the Governor a maximum 30-day window. 20 ILCS 3305/7 (West 2018}(“Upon such proclamation [of a disaster], the Governor shall have and may exercise for a period not to exceed 30 days following emergency powers. . . “).11

“My research leaves me less than confident that a reviewing court will hold that the Governor has the authority close businesses, bar attendance at church services and assemblies in excess of ten citizens (particularly if they are assembling to redress grievances). From a strict enforcement standpoint, although well-intentioned on an emergency basis, the EO is very broad and does not appear to meet strict scrutiny – this is not to mention the EO appears to be beyond the framework of the specific Act it cites as support.

COVID-19 Memo 4.21.20 (003)

Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we ask that you consider donating at the below link.


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • jannie
    Posted at 11:09h, 24 April Reply

    I wonder if other states have the same rules? Several states have closed things over the 30 days? And, although IA governor didn’t appear to do that I know of several towns where restaurants are closed except for curb service or carry out & only essential services. Just wondering.

  • mark misiorowski
    Posted at 11:43h, 24 April Reply

    Thank you for highlighting the Belt and Suspenders of “Our Federalism,” against the backdrop of Executive Action to Safeguard Public Health and Safety from Covid 19.

    The Memorandum you highlighted in today’s article sets forth state case law for the Belt.

    Your article the other day about US DOJ’s Certificate of Interest in Mississippi emphasizes federal case law for the Suspenders.

    It will be fascinating to see how Executive Officers (State and Federal) and the Courts (State and Federal) respond to these two lines of legal arguments going forward.

  • Diana Southard
    Posted at 11:54h, 24 April Reply

    A portion of the letter I have sent to our public SERVANTS of ILL:

    … can you tell me if these masks required by our Pharoh Pritzker will be government issued masks?

    Considering we haven’t ‘evolved’ with masks already affixed to our faces, (as cars are equipped with ‘mandatory seat belts’ these days), I wanted to know WHEN will our masks will be arriving, what materials are made of (N95, cotton, or asbestos- a previously approved material used all throughout modern society), and if everyone be getting them over the age of 2 (or just the ‘useful-eaters). Can we now cover our identity with these masks, afterall doesn’t the unPatriot Act require our faces be shown when going to the bank, for example and requesting cash back (face coverage and hoods not allowed)? What if I have a STOMA? What type of coverage is required for that open airway?

    Might some people be required to wear muzzlles? I wonder, will all of our noses evolve to be flattened like a pug or the Chinese from the mask pressing on our face? Will it be a crime to remove someone else’s mask? Can we still smile wearing our mask, do we still need to maintain good dental health? Is lipstick a thing of the past? Should we remove the mask when kissing the ring of our public servants (mistakenly called leaders)?

    What if a person has a FUNCTIONAL immune system? Will they be required this wear an ‘armband’ to declare such? The lepers used to be required to proclaim ‘UNCLEAN, UNCLEAN!’ when out in public, will this also be required of people that don’t have immunity? Can conscience objectors wear a FISHNET stockings or a wire mesh as a mask? 

  • Conservative Tea
    Posted at 12:26h, 24 April Reply

    Cops aren’t big on enforcing unconstitutional orders because they lead to massive
    payouts in unconstitutional actions that they may be personally liable for since they
    should not have carried out the order knowing it was unconstitutional That’s the first part.

    The second part is that every single business operates under a business license issued
    by the state and or county–which they pay a great deal of money to have. The state’s
    actions by shutting them down without due process means there’s going to be a lot of
    lawsuits coming. I know that if I had a business that was shut down, I would sure as
    shit be suing the state and county government for depriving me of my first, fifth and fourteenth
    Amendment rights. Pritzker is going to be on the wrong side of every one of them since
    depriving people of their rights and livelihoods because of suit for deprivation is going to
    go to a FEDERAL court–not the state courts. You cannot govern without the consent of
    the governed and people are fed up with this nonsense which means the consent of the
    governed is about to be withdrawn–and then we WILL have Civil War 2.

  • David Somerset
    Posted at 12:54h, 24 April Reply

    Does anyone think it might be a good idea to start a gofundme page to raise money so Governor Pritzker could pay for some high quality legal advice when crafting policy and executive orders?

  • PK
    Posted at 15:18h, 24 April Reply

    The Governor’s daily press conference is communicated via a person skilled in sign language, which seems to be enhanced through their use of facial expression. Pritzker can now talk with a face covering to example for the visually impaired.

  • Joe Barant
    Posted at 15:21h, 24 April Reply

    Gov. Pritzker: Sooooeeee, sooooeeee

  • Paula
    Posted at 16:43h, 24 April Reply

    Will you be filing a lawsuit, I hope?

  • pj ahlman
    Posted at 18:47h, 24 April Reply

    Hopefully, this will lead to other states following suit as needed.

    Posted at 19:09h, 24 April Reply

    Let me first state that I do not own an affected business – large or small – so I cannot say what I would actually do if I did. It would probably depend on the depth of damage already done and still being done and how long I could hold out before reaching the tipping point of losing my business, never being able to recover. That said, I wish we would all stop waiting for the government to allow us to reopen our businesses and run them as we see fit. Stop asking for permission! If the shutdown is illegal, why are we waiting for someone to grant us permission to reopen? Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten that our fundamental rights do not require a permit, a license, a certificate or any other authorization. Once a permit is required, a right becomes a privilege. Unlike our fundamental rights, privileges are granted. I know this is an over-simplification but look at it as food for thought.

  • Virginia Barnard
    Posted at 16:08h, 25 April Reply

    Will this be going in front a judge anytime soon .

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 16:32h, 25 April Reply


      • Virginia Barnard
        Posted at 18:11h, 25 April Reply

        Good because come May 1st he will be stripping me of my concealed to carry rights.

  • David
    Posted at 00:16h, 26 April Reply

    It’s the inconsistencies that get me. I have no problem with social distancing. But we have been told cannot go to summer home, on private land or in a campground because of the stay at home order and traveling to the second home would violate that order. Now he has opened some state parks and authorized use of parks, golf courses and boating. Why would I violate the stay-at-home order to visit my vacation property while traveling further to one of the open state parks not violate that same order? Why can a person traveling stay at a hotel and motel while a person traveling in a self-contained camper cannot stop overnight at a campground? The hotel/motels are considered essential while the campgrounds are not, under the current states interpretation.

Post A Comment