Jefferson Co. (ECWd) –
The troubled former mayor of Nason, Illinois, Michelle McKinney, received more bad news today, this time from the Judge in her bogus defamation/intimidation lawsuit she brought against her political opponents and local citizens. While she awaits her criminal prosecution related to her alleged obstruction of justice and possession of a stolen vehicle, financial hits keep coming, as she is now on the hook for the legal fees of those she tried to sue for defamation.
Those fees are a result of a good lawyer who fully understands the Illinois Citizen Participation Act. Brendan Healey was the attorney representing the four defendants. We attended the hearing on the matter in Mount Vernon, and it became pretty clear during the hearing the former mayor did not present a viable case.
Today’s docket entry:
“The Court has considered the arguments and representations of all parties heard on July 7, 2025, and all the documents appearing in the Court file related to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed herein on March 21, 2025. The following is the ruling of the Court as to that Motion:
The meaning of the words “Comments” and “Statements” as used in this ruling is the same as the definitions of those 2 words as set out in the Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay Discovery and to Dismiss Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (“Defendant’s Memorandum”) filed herein on March 21, 2025.
The Court notes that there are multiple reasons to dismiss the Complaint, and the same are listed below.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege the purported defamatory Comments and Statements with sufficient particularity. As such, said Comments and Statements alleged in the Complaint are substantially insufficient in law and are dismissed pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615.
The Court finds that the Comments and Statements alleged in the Complaint are not Defamatory per se and as such should be dismissed under 735 ILCS 5/2-615; except as to the following Comment or Statement (which impute that Plaintiff committed a crime) attributed to Rachel Lynch and Rosa McCoy:
“Hope she doesn’t get Tony all wrapped up in her criminal activities.” “Because a convicted felon cannot hold office.”
Further, the Court finds that the purported defamatory Comments and Statements asserted in the Complaint are non actionable opinion, and as such are substantially insufficient in law and are dismissed pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615.
Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead actual malice as to the Comments and Statements asserted in the Complaint. As such, the Plaintiff’s Complaint is substantially insufficient in law and is dismissed pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615. Further, in addition to the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s claim against Rita Pogue is dismissed under 735 ILCS 2-619(a)(9) in that said claim is barred by other affirmative matter avoiding the legal effect of or defeating the claim, that being 47 USC 230(c)(1).
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be dismissed pursuant to 735 ILCS 2-619(a)(9) in that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by other affirmative matter avoiding the legal effect of or defeating the claim, that being the Citizen’s Participation Act.
Further, as to the elements found on page 13 of Defendant’s Memorandum, the Court finds that the Defendant’s have meet their burden of proving elements (1) and (2), and that Plaintiff did not meet her burden of proving element (3).
The Court is aware of 735 ILCS 110/25 which states: “The court shall award a moving party who prevails in a motion under this Act reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion.” The Court awards reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with the Motion to Dismiss filed March 21, 2025. The Defendants are granted until on or before August 15, 2025, to submit a fee petition in support of their claim for fees and costs incurred in connection with the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is granted until September 5, 2025, to submit a written response to the petition.
In light of the foregoing, the Court stays discovery pending further Order of the Court.
Counsel for the Defendants is directed to prepare a proposed Order in conformity with this Record Sheet entry, and to forward the same to the Clerk (with a copy to Plaintiff) for the Court’s review.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this Record Sheet entry to all parties.”
No Comments