Final Update: Court update

It is almost 11:15, the case is still being argued.

Normal has 4 lawyers in court. Only 2 have spoken so far.

Taxpayers will be.getting a huge bill!

Those 4 lawyers, at least 3 of them because Brian Day is on staff, likely cost taxpayers $2000 an hour. 9:30 to 12:00.

I talked to Tom Devore. He says the judge ruled on issued not raised by Normal’s lawyers – Home Rule. The statue states laws apply unless changed by a referendum. He thinks the Supervisor and Collector are clear cut, there hasn’t been a referendum.

He thinks the Clerk issue is more difficult to prove.

There can be an appeal, but it’s going to be expensive. Devore thinks the judge just isn’t versed in municipal law.



22 thoughts on “Final Update: Court update

  1. I listened to the court case today, my opinion was that the judge had his mind made up on how he was going to rule even before the attorneys had presented their case!!!! Normal gets their cake and gets to eat it too not surprised.

  2. “Of the people, for the people.” unless of course Chris Koos is involved. Four lawyers to spin the Koos tyranny? Must be feeling the heat! I pray that true justice will prevail.

  3. I’ve dealt with Normal before. The aldermen have no control over the staff. I’m done watching Normal constantly crap on their residents just so staff keep complete control. I’m making plans to move my business out of the Normal swamp.

  4. I get all the details confused. Was there a referendum on the clerks office or was it changed by town council vote only?

  5. HL so many staff live outside Normal wonder why they could a rats ass about problems you have. Only alternative is move just like you suggested.

    1. Or change leadership so they’ll work to correct our current staff residency imbalance!
      The bottom line is we need the bottom three: Stan, Marc Karl

  6. I attempted throughout to be admitted to the Zoom call. However, it continued to stay in the status for waiting for the judge to admit. This was at all points to the call and using multiple avenues to connect, Was anyone else deprived of their right to observe an attempt at justice?

      1. I took screenshots too at different points but heeded the no video or audio. Not that I was allowed in anyway.

  7. The judge today acted more like the defense counsel then the blind scales of justice, that he is supposed to represent. It appeared that he had prepared and researched, however, poorly, for this, hearing in such a way, as though that Tom did more defending against his “questions“ Then defending against the true defense counsel. Then the judge would just say that these are, “questions I have“. And then disregard the statements made by both Tom and the defense team. The argument presented by the judge had really no basis in any legislative or case law. Tom defended everything with both case law and State Code. But the Judge wasn’t listening to anything. It was clear to me by the mid break.

  8. I have no confidence in this judge. How does he look in the mirror? How does he sleep at night? How does someone reach this level in their career and have no integrity to properly adjudicate a case. Troubling to say the least.

  9. I don’t understand why Normal had to hired so many outside attorneys. Is Brian Day too incompetent to do any legal stuff on his own? It’s like Normal intentionally goes overkill to overspend tax dollars.

  10. I clearly have a dog in this hunt. However, I am not a partisan – I always try to look for the best, most truthful answer or solution regardless of whether I like it or not.
    We have a Legal system, not a Justice system. A true Justice system is not realistically feasible, so we do our best as a society to form a Legal system as close to a Justice system as possible.
    On the one hand, this morning was miscarriage of justice in two ways. One, ‘the good guys’ lost, but that is only relevant in a Justice system. Two, our attorney argued “A”, their attorneys argued “B”, and the judge came back with “Nobody said anything about C, which is very important, and I’m going to rule based on C”. Judges are not supposed to themselves present the arguments that one side or the other failed to bring up.
    That being said, from what I can tell the judge was correct about C and thus correct about his ruling. I’m not sure, because there was no back and forth like there would have / should have been if either side had presented the argument, and it’s possible the judge overlooked or ignored something. But based purely on what was presented, it seemed reasonable.
    We are considering an appeal. Nothing has been decided one way or the other, but at this point in my opinion we would win the appeal on procedural grounds but would lose on actual legality. (Take that with a grain of salt – I’m not an actual lawyer.) I’m not sure how that would manifest but it sounds like an appeal would give us a moral victory but without any substantive improvement.

    Most of the questionable or outright unethical things Koos/Reece/The Town does are actually legal. Sometimes because IL laws are largely written by corrupt politicians for the benefit of corrupt politicians. Sometimes because those laws are unnecessarily confusing and Normal is literally the only municipality in the state with our unique form of government so it’s hard to apply any usual standards. Most often simply because they’re very good at ‘gaming the system’.
    So the best, and possibly only way to get good government in Normal is at the ballot box in April. There are two mindsets on the ballot: “What can we get away with legally?” and “What is the most just thing to do?” Don’t just vote accordingly, but tell others, help out, and donate if you can.

      1. The really short version is I’ll work for The People, not for The Plan.
        More listening, more transparency, less tax increases, less pet projects.
        Honesty first: there are 7 votes on the council (6+mayor). Right now 6 are solidly in the Koos/Reece camp, despite the occasional theater of a ‘no’ vote. Best case after April we cut that to 4, so I cannot promise immediate meaningful change – that may take another election in 2 years.
        But some things I’d Like to see:
        – More advance notice on meeting agendas so the public can digest and provide input.
        – Board packets that include reasons for And Against the items under consideration
        – A public comment policy designed to Get public input rather than discourage it.
        – A standard practice of delaying contentious issues to a second meeting so more input can be gathered and/or positions can be better explained
        – I prioritize debt reduction so will not actively push tax cuts, but do prefer lower taxes
        – More critical analysis before granting (fewer) subsidies and incentives
        – Reduced regulatory burdens
        – No new debt unless absolutely unavoidable.
        – Advance notice on appointed positions to allow consideration rather than blind approval.
        – No new pet projects until old ones are paid for or somehow prove profitable, and more critical analysis and transparency for any that might move forward
        – Given there are rumors of renewed virus hysteria, following the science rather than the politics

  11. We expect the people we elect to protect us from government doing bad things that are legal. If they don’t, then we hold them accountable by not re-electing them. Normal’s staff made it clear they don’t want these offices elected and given power to protect the people from government. It is critical that the few remaining offices staff still allow us to elect are filled with people who will stop staff from doing bad, but legal things to us..

Leave a Reply