.png)
Back in March, Mom-At-Arms research and journalism led to some major problems for IL Governor JB Pritzker and two newly seated IL Supreme Court justices (Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O'Brien). Story (and what it started) here:
In short, ethical concerns were raised and the story was picked up by Washington Gun Law and Greg Bishop of the Center Square (in link above), to which they both credited Mom-At-Arms for the findings, to which Bishop later expanded upon and even questioned the governor point blank regarding it. That later led to the attorney representing Representative Dan Caulkins in his challenge to the IL gun ban to file a motion to recuse for the two justices that will be hearing his case in May due to the conflicts of interest regarding ties to campaign contributions (the defendants in the case, which include the governor, made up roughly 40% of the campaign donations both justices received), and the fact that they were endorsed by gun control groups, one of which stated they both answered on a questionnaire that they support an "assault weapon ban". That story here regarding assault weapons and the justices.
Story on the motion to recuse here:
Oh, let's not forget that the Twitter account for the IL Supreme Court, which is a govenrment accoubt, was censoring replies on their account on all of this stuff regarding Pritzker and the justices:
Well, the justices denied the motion to recuse (setting up an appeal if the justices on the ILSC side with the defendants if the plaintiffs choose directly to SCOTUS based on Caperton V Massey) and even attacked the plantiff (Caulkins) for daring to question their integrity. Story on that here:
This all brings us to some new findings regarding one of the justices, Elizabeth Rochford. How the opposition research missed this I'll never know. In 2006, she was sued by a client of hers and accused of legal malpractice. A lower court ruled in favor of her, to which the plaintiff appealed to the appellate court, and they reversed the ruling and found Rochford "guilty" of legal malpractice. From her past when she practiced real estate law.
Note: she wasn't on the IL Supreme Court until 2022
Rochford then, in 2007, appealed this decision to where she now sits (the IL Supreme Court) and they told her to get lost (denied the appeal).
The case she lost is now used in both state and federal courts to determine outcomes regarding legal malpractice in certain situations.
State:
Federal:
There you have it, folks. A newly elected (and depending who you ask, bought and paid for) justice on the IL Supreme Court was sued for legal malpractice, lost, her case is used to settle other malpractice lawsuits, and she sits on the highest court in one of the most corrupt states and will be doing her duty to likely "help out" her donors to uphold a law that they all want.
Comments