« Law - "Athletes, sports leagues and universities around the nation have become increasingly aggressive in protecting what they say is their intellectual property" | Main | Courts - "New Democratic Majority Throws Bush’s Judicial Nominations Into Uncertainty" »

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Courts - More on: Illinois chief justice doesn't just get mad, he sues

This ILB entry from June 18, 2006 quotes from a long Chicago Tribune reports that began:

A politician might have written a righteous letter to the editor. A different judge may have ignored the matter altogether.

But when Illinois Supreme Court Justice Bob Thomas objected to a series of critical newspaper columns, the pugnacious jurist and former Chicago Bear sued the people who published them.

Now, elevated to chief justice and head of the state's judicial branch, Thomas is waging an unapologetic legal battle that raises some hot questions about political criticism and press freedom--while also fueling an intramural drama of keen interest in the state's legal circles.

The lawsuit alleges that the Kane County Chronicle defamed Thomas and cast him in a false light in articles published three years ago.

It could go to trial in September, offering the rare sight of a top jurist sitting on the other side of the bar, acting as a plaintiff before judges who are at least nominally responsible to the Supreme Court.

Today Russell Working of the Tribune reports, in a story headlined "Judge's lawsuit heading for jury: Writer, chief justice fight for reputations," that begins:
As jurors sit down this week to decide a defamation case brought by Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Thomas, they can choose from a couple of theories.

Lawyers for Thomas, the former Bears placekicker who now heads the state's judiciary, cast the case as a struggle to clear their client's name of malicious smears they suggest could cripple his career.

Lawyers for the Kane County Chronicle, former columnist Bill Page and other defendants say it's about free speech, and an elected official's attempt to quash legitimate expression of opinion.

It's a rarity for a sitting Supreme Court justice to appear as a plaintiff in a civil suit. And for two weeks in a Geneva courthouse, spectators have been treated to judicial curiosities: a string of justices on the witness stand, where attorneys addressed them "your honor"; and lawyers from the Illinois attorney general's office representing the judge-witnesses, posing their own objections to questioning.

But behind the rhetoric and the judicial star power, the case has often seemed to boil down to a simpler, time-tested plot line: two men in an all-out fight for their reputations.

In 2003, Page wrote three columns claiming Thomas was biased against former Kane County State's Atty. Meg Gorecki, who faced disciplinary action before the state Supreme Court. Page wrote that Thomas wanted Gorecki disbarred, but then backed off in exchange for a political favor.

For Thomas, the accusations of misconduct--which he says would amount to a crime--were too serious to be ignored.

"A judge's job description is to be fair," he said on the witness stand. "And Bill Page said I can't be fair. He's taken away my integrity and my good name, and I'm here to get it back."

For more, see this entry in How Appealing.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 12, 2006 02:42 PM
Posted to Courts in general