Copyright 2022 All Rights Reserved.

December 9, 2022

How False Statements On The House Floor Lead To Win For Injustice; Loss For Taxpayers –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On July 13, 2021

Shelby County, IL. (ECWd) –

The Fifth Appellate Court issued its Order affirming the Shelby Circuit Court’s decision in granting Defendant Flynn summary judgment based partly on the affidavit submitted by the law firm where the Shelby County State’s Attorney attested that she hired a member of the law firm as Special Assistant State’s Attorney pursuant to 4-2003(b) of the Illinois Counties Code, 55 ILCS 5/4-2003(b).  We must note, her affidavit directly conflicted with her comments in a recorded closed session as well as the public record that proves it was the County Board who hired Ed Flynn.

This Order was also partly based on false statements on the House Floor during a debate on House Bill 3846 on May 31, 2018. That Bill added subparagraph (b) to Section 4-2003 of the Illinois Counties Code, and Representative Mitchell explained it as “a Bill just codifying something that state’s attorneys can already do around the state which is to appoint special council to assist with complex litigation” – that statement by Representative Mitchell was false since a state’s attorney did not possess the power to appoint special counsel absent a court order, absent appointment as an “assistant” state’s attorney pursuant to the now-subparagraph (a) of Section 4-2003, and absent clear conflicts of interest.

How the Court could state that “However, whether we consider Mr. Flynn’s legal services in 2014, or 2019 and 2020, we find no illegality” is concerning when they apparently based it on false floor debate statements from 2018. It flies in the face of all previously established (including Illinois Supreme Court) interpretations of the county’s code and powers of state’s attorneys.

As far as applying HB3846 retroactively, the Illinois Supreme Court, in Institute For Justice v IDFPR (2018), determined that absent clear legislative intent, substantive changes to the law are prospective only (we submitted an Amici Curiae brief in that case).

This current Order cites no case law on the hiring of (special) assistant state’s attorneys, and relies on a section of the counties code which became effective January 1, 2019:

(b) The State’s Attorney may appoint qualified attorneys to assist as Special Assistant State’s Attorneys when the public interest so requires.
(Source: P.A. 100-669, eff. 1-1-19.

The former State’s Attorney, County Board Chairman, and board members have already admitted the “board” hired Flynn, not the State’s Attorney.

The Court ignored its own previous ruling from a 2002 Fifth Appellate case, People v. Woodall, when this same Court stated that “The position of “special assistant State’s Attorney” is a position unknown to our laws” – which was an accurate statement up until the Jan 1, 2019 authorization by the legislature became effective. Woodall was even cited by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2017, when it said “. . . a state agency cannot broaden its authority beyond the confines of a statute . . .”

From a purely legal analysis standpoint:

  • The 69 pages of Attorney General opinions citing Supreme Court case law on this matter all dispute the Court’s ruling.
  • The standing case law on this point, Ashton v Cook, was never referenced in the ruling.
  • The Court ignored the well-established Shelby County People v Woodall case.
  • The Court ignored the entire issue of the 2014 hiring by the county board and went so far as to say that was legal, relying on a known false statement to gain the approval of HB3846 (see page 182), which directly conflicts with this court’s prior ruling on the subject matter.
  • The Court failed to fact check the floor debate for accuracy; the Woodall case proves there was never any authority to hire a special assistant state’s attorney prior to 2019 – but since it was stated during floor debate it was accurate? No, it was not.

We understand preparations are being made for a rehearing on this matter as many facts have been ignored.

Disposition - 5th
Firnhaber Disposition - 5th

SHARE THIS

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

RELATED

9 Comments
  • jannie
    Posted at 11:24h, 13 July

    Having been involved in a small way with a civil suit court case which dealt with a what everyone, retired judges/ lawyers said would/should be ruled in our favor rather than the public body, wasn’t. What I learned is that some times it a. has nothing to do with what’s “right” it has to do with who has the best lawyer. Does your lawyer “forget” something important? Our group paid for a jury trial, but the opposing lawyer – fought against it & won – with the judge agreeing. So at the end of the day — there is no justice.

  • PK
    Posted at 11:48h, 13 July

    In both orders, the court writes: “The uncontroverted evidence…” That just can’t be near the Show Me state university’s 1980’s law degree programming; because applying the legal definition of “uncontroverted” to the case(s) facts as reported here, with evidence, can be done by a layperson. The Prairie State courts’ official standards for compensation are poorly deliberated on the shoulders of others’.

    Also, a clear and convincing discrediting occurred in relation to the former state’s attorney and Mr. Flynn. Yet, the ARDC web-site purports no provision for a Public Record of Discipline and/or Pending Proceedings on Mr. Flynn since his 1986 registry.

  • Jim Gillespey
    Posted at 12:11h, 13 July

    Guess it doesn’t matter if you’re a lawyer or a STATES ATTORNEY when you don’t do your job and find that slapping hands and playing patsy under the table you still get by without doing you job, if the last STATES ATTORNEY would have really done her job she might have needed help,but since she made deals and fee bargaining everything I as a Tax PAYER would like to see what everyone else things !

  • John Quest
    Posted at 23:02h, 13 July

    Rehearing? When was the first hearing? No oral arguments were heard because this issue is so BASIC. Move onto another county. You’ve embarrassed Shelby County long enough.

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 08:53h, 14 July

      What Rock have you been living under? There were oral arguments so your statement is 100% false. Go to the court’s website and listen for yourself. The only embarrassment brought to Shelby County is from those who refuse to follow the most basic laws on the books.

      • PK
        Posted at 15:09h, 14 July

        Thanks for previously posting a transcript from the plaintiff’s deposition!

        Today I realized how three differing forms of county government can be misconstrued….by the seat, through a statehouse bill, and then in an appellate court’s absurd ruling. But the 5th appellate district purports the capability of adjudicating across two of three administrative forms on a re-hearing of the case(s).

    • PK
      Posted at 18:32h, 14 July

      In case NO. 5-20-0370, the appellant’s rebuttal gavels the former Shelby county board chair’s statement: ‘legal or illegal, the bill needs paid’ in a most discerning way.

      Give a listen to the defense lawyer profess knowledge about what causes higher law enforcement labor rates too. Accordingly, it has nothing to do with the county having a working payroll accounting system. Check it out…you just might be surprised, Dr. Quest!

      Caveat venditor, Mr. Flynn!

  • John Quest
    Posted at 09:55h, 17 July

    You’re a complete counterfeit. Erica Firnhaber’s lawyer and Ed Flynn’s lawyer had no Oral arguments in front of the appellate judges in Springfield because it’s BASIC. They did not need to have oral arguments. CASE CLOSED.

$