Judge grants temporary restraining order against Proviso Probe

Emanuel "Chris" Welch has sued me for defamation (again). He is represented by Myron Mackoff, of Richardson & Mackoff.

Today Cook County Judge Martin Agran granted a temporary restraining order that required me to remove one paragraph of the original entry. While I'm not happy about this, I don't feel it substantially changes the meaning of what I wrote.

I disagree that Judge Agran's interpretation of the law is a good interpretation of the law, but I'm not sure that it's incorrect.

Under Illinois law, as Judge Agran explained it, accusing someone, including a public figure, of a crime is sufficient to constitute defamation, even if it's couched in what a former boss called "weasel words". For example, "I believe X committed a crime," "I speculate X committed a crime" and "The State's Attorney should prosecute X for a crime" would all be potentially defamatory.

And, according to Judge Agran, it would be proper to issue a temporary restraining order to remove these statements irrespective if they were true.

I was representing myself. I'll post the gist of my arguments later. So, maybe if I quoted some case law and had an attorney I would have prevailed.

Based on Judge Agran's ruling, if a blogger wrote, "Based on the testimony at the Rezko trial Governor Rod Blagojevich should be prosecuted for corruption," Blagojevich could get a temporary restraining order to get the sentence removed.

Of course, the downside for Blagojevich would be that he'd be opening himself to depositions. Welch has the same problem. I don't think he will want to be deposed on the issues in question.

I disagree with the interpretation Judge Agran is using, but I'm not sure he's misinterpreting the case law incorrectly. I think public figures should be open to being accused of criminal activity, especially politicians.

Whether someone gets prosecuted or not is an intrinsically political decision. Prosecutors (the Illinois Attorney General and county state's attorneys) are elected.

This is a system that tilts criminal justice in favor of political bosses. Why would a county state's attorney prosecute people who can cause him/her problems in the next election?

Local officials, like Welch, Eugene Moore, Ron Serpico and Karen Yarbrough, can do stuff that looks like it violates Illinois law. And regular citizens need to be able to afford a lawyer to call-out the public officials who are already getting a massive benefit-of-the-doubt from the state's attorney.

Sterk v. Proviso Insider covered in Sun-Times

Sun-Times (Steve Patterson) reported on Mark Sterk's lawsuit against Proviso Insider.

I wrote about the case in some detail on Prairie State Blue.

BTW, when I talked to Sterk about the case he seemed pretty upset. He seems determined to inflict some payback to "John Doe", aka "Proviso Insider".

[UPDATE: Proviso Insider responds with... just read it. It's funny.]

LEGAL, Does anyone know a good defamation lawyer? [D88]

West Suburban Journal (Kevin Williams) is not just floating the theory Dr. Nichelle Rivers planted the porn on Principal Paul Glover's computer, it's making the allegation in a headline.

Superintendent plot foiled; Glover retained, Rivers removed

A principal accused of having pornographic material on his district issued laptop, a superintendent accused of planting the material and releasing photos to the media and shredding documents is the latest controversy swirling around Bellwood McKinley Elementary School.

If the board majority and Glover have been floating the theory Rivers placed the porn on Glover's computer, none of the Chicago media outlets even included this in their stories.

Oh wait, I just finished reading the West Suburban Journal article.

The school board president Marilyn Thurman said that she had seen the pictures, and commented that she did not think they were bad, although they were on school property.

So, Glover's patron, school board president Marilyn Thurman is defending Glover by saying the pictures aren't that bad, but West Suburban Journal is floating the theory Rivers placed the pictures in the same article.

Don't you think if the pictures were planted by a third party he'd tell his patron on the school board?

BTW, Thurman's defense doesn't hold water. Employers can fire employees for using work computers for personal activities, although I consider it over-reacting when the personal use is relatively innocent, like checking email. However, after having been warned--especially about porn--almost any employer would terminate the individual in question.