Copyright 2023 All Rights Reserved.

December 3, 2023

Bailey v Pritzker: Emergency Motion filed to immediately remand back to Clay County Circuit Court –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On May 21, 2020

Clay Co. (ECWd) –

An Emergency Motion filed in Federal Court to remand the Bailey v Pritzker case back to the Clay County Circuit court was filed early this afternoon. This Motion is seeking an immediate remand.

From the Motion and Memorandum:

  • The Defendant’s Notice of Removal is perhaps the most outrageous invocation of federal jurisdiction imaginable. Defendant has taken Plaintiff’s Complaint, which raises nothing but questions concerning Defendant’s authority under certain Illinois statutes,
    and contrived federal questions where none exist. Given the Defendant’s prior actions in connection with the underlying state court case, including a request for supervisory review and a specious motion to transfer venue, it is clear he is intent on forum shopping and wants nothing more than to derail state court proceedings. This Court should not countenance such an egregious attempt to neuter a state court.
  • In short, the Notice of Removal is beyond frivolous and reeks of bad faith, and this Court should immediately remand this matter to the Circuit Court, Clay County, Illinois for disposition.
  • The relief requested in the first amended complaint is not predicated, in any respect, on alleged violations of rights conferred under the United States Constitution or any federal statutes.
  • Nor does the first amended complaint contain any suggestion by Plaintiff that his federal civil rights have been violated by Defendant’s proclamations and executive orders.
  • Instead, Plaintiff states only that Defendant’s proclamations and executive orders exceed authority conferred by the Illinois legislature.
  • Given this Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as well as the expedited schedule for the state court proceeding as established by the Circuit Court, this Court should remand this matter immediately, without awaiting an opposition from Defendant. Nothing he would say could salvage this removal.
  • Here, Defendant’s notice of removal is far worse than insubstantial—it is frivolous. His entire theory of jurisdiction rests on the utterly false assertions that Plaintiff is seeking vindication of violation of his federal rights. On that basis, this Court should assess
    Plaintiff’s attorney fees against the Defendant.

Read the Emergency Motion and Memorandum below:
Bailey Emergency Motion to Remand

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Remand


.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


  • Nate
    Posted at 21:59h, 21 May

    @JMKraft — do you know if there’s a chance this motion will be addressed tomorrow?

    I genuinely believe the case removal was filed in bad faith on the AG’s part as a means for judge shopping, but even if the federal court doesn’t believe that, a decision should be made without delay.

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 06:55h, 22 May

      we don’t know yet