Saturday, March 12, 2016

Organizing the Data: 6th Subcircuit, Santiago vacancy

This candidate is running unopposed in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.

Richard C. Cooke - #243


Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Richard C. Cooke is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Cooke was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1992 and is a solo practitioner concentrating in real estate law, personal injury, and civil Litigation. Mr. Cooke is articulate and well regarded for his knowledge of the law, dedication, and fairness.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Richard Cooke was admitted to practice in 1992. He is a sole practitioner. From 1992 to 1994 he was a trial attorney for a captive insurance company law firm, and served as in-house staff counsel for CNA insurance from 1994 to 1997. Since 2008 he has operated a self-funded pro bono legal clinic – the Cooke Legal Aid Clinic. He is active in community activities. Mr. Cooke is reported to have good legal ability and temperament. He is considered to be a good lawyer who is praised for his integrity and for being exceptionally hard-working. He has substantial litigation experience in complicated matters, and his practice involves complex transactional matters that further demonstrate the analytic thinking necessary to be a good judge. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Richard C. Cooke was admitted to practice in 1992. He is a solo practitioner and previously worked for a firm doing insurance defense and then for CNA Insurance as a trial attorney. He has handled contracts, personal injury cases, divorces, and business deals, including some complex litigation and transactional matters. He considered to be knowledgeable in his practice areas, professional and meticulous. He runs a self-funded pro bono legal clinic in conjunction with Casa Central, serving primarily a Hispanic clientele. Mr. Cooke is found to be Qualified for election to the Circuit Court.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Recommended
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoRecommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every Cook County judicial contest"

Organizing the Data: 6th Subcircuit, Ponce de Leon vacancy

This candidate is running unopposed in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.

Eulalia "Evie" De La Rosa - #241


Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Eulalia De La Rosa is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. De La Rosa was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2004 and is currently serving as an Assistant Cook County Public Defender in the Felony Trial Division. Ms. De La Rosa has extensive trial experience and is well regarded for her knowledge of the law, excellent demeanor, and commitment to public service.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Eulalia “Evie” De La Rosa was admitted to practice in 2004. She has been a career Assistant Cook County Public Defender since 2005, and has been assigned to the felony trial division since 2009. For a year after becoming a lawyer, she worked for the Cook County Office of the Chief Judge as a staff attorney and court coordinator. She is considered to have good legal ability with substantial litigation experience, despite her relatively short career. She is praised for her litigation skills and her temperament. She is active in community activities. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Eulalia De La Rosa was admitted to practice in 2004. She has worked for the Public Defender’s Office for the past eleven years, and is currently assigned to the felony trial division. She has considerable jury and bench experience and is praised for her legal knowledge and ability. She is considered diligent and hard-working, with a good temperament, and is particularly commended for her ability to represent clients with mental health issues. Ms. De La Rosa is found to be Qualified to election to the Circuit Court.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Recommended
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoRecommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every Cook County judicial contest"

Organizing the Data: 7th Subcircuit, Burrell vacancy

This candidate is running unopposed in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.

Marianne Jackson - #241

Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Judge Marianne Jackson is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Judge Jackson was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1973 and was appointed an Associate Judge in 1997. Judge Jackson is currently assigned to the Juvenile Justice Division’s Child Protection Department. Judge Jackson effectively manages her courtroom and is well regarded for her knowledge of the law and outstanding demeanor and temperament.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Hon. Marianne Jackson was admitted to practice in 1973. She has served as an Associate Judge since 1997 and has been assigned to the Juvenile Justice Division since 1999. Prior to becoming a judge she served as an Assistant United States Attorney and as a private criminal defense counsel. She served as a Deputy U.S. Attorney and was named Chief of the Criminal Division. As a lawyer, she had substantial litigation experience in complex matters and was praised for her litigation skills. As a judge, she is reported to possess good legal ability and to be very knowledgeable. She has a good judicial temperament and is praised for being well-prepared. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Marianne Jackson was admitted to practice in 1973. She was elected an associate judge in 1997 and was appointed as a full judge to the Circuit Court in 2014. She has been assigned to the Juvenile Justice Division since 1999. She had previously served as a Deputy United States Attorney, including as Chief of the Criminal Division, and as a private criminal defense attorney. She is highly regarded for her legal knowledge and ability and has been widely praised for her involvement with diversion programs at Juvenile Court. Judge Jackson is found to be Highly Qualified for election to the Circuit Court.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Recommended
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoNot Evaluated
Cook County Bar AssociationHighly Recommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersHighly Recommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisHighly Qualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoHighly Recommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisHighly Recommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every Cook County judicial contest"

Organizing the Data: 11th Subcircuit, Zwick vacancy

This candidate is running unopposed in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.

William B. Sullivan - #244


Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Judge William B. Sullivan is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Judge Sullivan was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1992 and was engaged in the solo practice of law for 22 years before his appointment in 2015 to the Circuit Court. Judge Sullivan is currently assigned to the First Municipal Division of the Circuit Court and is well regarded for his work ethic, fine temperament, and knowledge of the law.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Hon. William B. Sullivan was admitted to practice in 1992. He was appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to the Circuit Court in 2015. He had been a sole practitioner since 1992. He worked on various civil legal issues including, but not limited to, commercial and real estate litigation and transactions. Much of his trial experience has been litigation involving eviction cases turning on interpretations of commercial leases. He is active in community affairs. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
William B. Sullivan was admitted to practice in 1992. He was appointed to the Circuit Court in June 2015. Prior to his appointment he was a sole practitioner concentrating in real estate and eviction cases, including some complex mattes. As an attorney he was reported to be professional, diligent and experienced. He has been active in community affairs. Judge Sullivan is found to be Qualified for election to the Circuit Court.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Recommended
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoRecommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every Cook County judicial contest"

Organizing the Data: 14th Subcircuit, Murphy vacancy

This candidate is running unopposed in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.

Matthew Link - #241

No Campaign Website Known. No photograph available.

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Matthew Link declined to participate in the Judicial Evaluation Committee (JEC) screening process and, therefore, according to The Chicago Bar Association’s governing resolution for the JEC, is automatically found NOT RECOMMENDED.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Matthew Link failed to submit materials for evaluation. The Council finds him Not Recommended for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Matthew Link declined to participate in the judicial evaluation process. Mr. Link is found to be Not Recommended for election to the Circuit Court, pursuant to ISBA guidelines.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Not Recommended
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoNot Recommended
Cook County Bar AssociationNot Recommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersNot Recommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationNot Recommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisNot Qualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoNot Recommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisNot Recommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisNot Recommended

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every Cook County judicial contest"

Friday, March 11, 2016

Organizing the Data: Countywide O'Brien vacancy

This candidate is running unopposed in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.

Maureen O'Donoghue Hannon - #220


Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Maureen O’Donoghue Hannon is “Highly Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Hannon was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1991 and has extensive civil trial experience at the federal and state levels. Ms. Hannon has tried many complex cases and is highly regarded for her knowledge of the law and legal ability.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Maureen O’Donoghue Hannon was admitted to practice in 1991. She is an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney working in the Conflict Counsel Unit, where she is responsible for the defense of Cook County Offices, Elected and Appointed Officials, and Cook County employees in various areas of state and federal civil litigation. Within the State’s Attorney’s Office, she has served in the Special Projects and Assignment Unit, the Municipal Litigation Unit, the Transactions Unit, and the Labor and Employment Unit. She came to the State’s Attorney’s Office in 1994 after a stint in private practice and then left the office between 1995 and 1998 to be an Associate with Burke, Burns, and Pinelli, Ltd. She returned to the office in 1999. Ms. Hannon is considered to have good legal ability. She has extensive experience in more complex litigation matters, and she is praised for her litigation skills and for her professional demeanor. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Maureen O’Donoughue Hannon was admitted to practice in 1991. She is a supervisor for the State’s Attorney’s Office in the Conflict Counsels Unit, where she defends Cook County offices, officials and employees in state and federal litigation. She handles complex matters and is considered knowledgeable and diligent with unquestioned integrity. She has been involved in some bar association activities. Ms. Hannon is found to be Qualified for election to the Circuit Court.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Recommended
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoRecommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every Cook County judicial contest"

Organizing the Data: Countywide Love vacancy

This candidate is running unopposed in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.

Brendan A. O'Brien - #219



Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Brendan A. O’Brien is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. O’Brien was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1996 and is a partner in a large defense firm concentrating in medical malpractice and construction law cases. Mr. O’Brien has extensive trial experience and is highly regarded by his peers for his knowledge of the law, excellent litigation skills, and outstanding demeanor and temperament.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Brendan O’Brien was admitted to practice in 1996. He has been a a Partner in the firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson since 1999 and was an attorney with Connelly and Schroeder between 1996 and 1999. Mr. O’Brien has substantial litigation experience in insurance defense and medical malpractice cases. He is considered to have very good legal ability and is praised for being a hard-working, well-prepared practitioner. He is reported to have excellent litigation skills and his integrity is unquestioned. The Council finds him Well Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Brendan A. O’Brien has been licensed since 1996. He is a partner at Hinshaw and Culbertson focusing on insurance defense and medical malpractice cases. He has considerable litigation experience and is considered to be a good and diligent attorney. Mr. O’Brien is found to be Qualified for election to the Circuit Court.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Recommended
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoNot Recommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every Cook County judicial contest"

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Organizing the Data: Countywide Biebel, Jr. vacancy

This candidate is running unopposed in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.
John Fitzgerald Lyke, Jr. - #201


Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Judge John F. Lyke, Jr. is “Highly Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Judge Lyke was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1994 and was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2015. Judge Lyke is currently assigned to the First Municipal District Traffic Court and also serves in the five suburban municipal districts hearing misdemeanor and felony cases. Judge Lyke is well regarded for his knowledge of criminal law and judicial demeanor.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Hon. John Fitzgerald Lyke, Jr. was admitted to practice in 1994 and was recently appointed to the Circuit Court by the Illinois Supreme Court. He was a sole practitioner doing criminal defense work. He was also an Administrative Hearing Officer for the Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Licensing. He served for six years as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney where his work included the prosecution of complex criminal law matters. Judge Lyke is considered by most lawyers and judges contacted for this evaluation to be a good lawyer who is knowledgeable and an appropriately zealous advocate for his clients. He has substantial litigation experience in complex matters. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
John Fitzgerald Lyke, Jr. was admitted to practice in 1994. He was appointed to the Circuit Court in July 2015. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner concentrating in criminal defense and an Administrative Hearing Officer for the City of Chicago – Department of Business Affairs and Licensing. In his earlier career, he was an Assistant State’s Attorney. He is considered to have good legal knowledge and ability with a sufficient background in litigation. Judge Lyke is found to be Qualified for election to the Circuit Court.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Qualified
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoRecommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every Cook County judicial contest"

Organizing the Data: Appellate Court - Quinn vacancy

This candidate is unopposed in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.
Bertina E. Lampkin - #192


Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Justice Bertina Lampkin is “Highly Qualified” for the office of Justice of the Illinois Appellate Court. Justice Lampkin was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1974 and served as an Associate Judge from 1987-1992; a Circuit Court Judge from 1992-2009; and was appointed to the Illinois Appellate Court in 2009. Justice Lampkin has exceptional trial experience and has made a flawless transition to the Illinois Appellate Court. Justice Lampkin is highly regarded for her knowledge of the law, work ethic, integrity, compassion, and dedication to the justice system.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Hon. Bertina Lampkin was admitted to practice in 1974 and was elected to the Circuit Court in 1992. As a lawyer, she had extensive litigation experience in both complex trial and appellate court matters as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney. She also has experience trying civil cases as an attorney with the Chicago Department of Law. Justice Lampkin was appointed to the Illinois Appellate Court in 2009.

As a trial judge, she heard criminal law matters at the Courthouse at 26th and California, and at that time was reported to be a very good, hardworking jurist who was praised for her writing skills. When the Council found her qualified for the Appellate Court in 2009, her written evaluation materials included approximately 100 opinions from cases she heard at 26th street, including findings on post-conviction petitions and motions to quash and suppress. She has served as the chair of the Supreme Court criminal pattern jury instructions committee. In that position, she was responsible for writing the new death penalty instructions and the instructions for specific specialized jury verdict required by the Apprendi case. She has taught in the area of death penalty litigation.

As an Appellate Court judge, Justice Lampkin has demonstrated that she meets – and exceeds the higher standards that the Council uses in evaluating candidates for the Appellate Court. In the 2013 judicial evaluation, lawyers report that Justice Lampkin has exceptional command of substantive law, as well as procedural rules. She is praised for being hardworking and her written opinions are considered to be well-reasoned. She is an active participant in oral arguments and is reported to have good temperament. The Council finds Judge Lampkin Well Qualified for the Appellate Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Bertina E. Lampkin has been sitting on the Appellate Court by appointment since 2009. She was elected to the Circuit Court in 1992 after serving as an Associate Judge for five years. Prior to her appointment to the bench she had worked for the State’s Attorney’s Office and the City of Chicago’s Department of Law, gaining experience in both criminal and civil litigation. Before her appointment to the Appellate Court, she has been assigned to the felony trial Courts at the Leighton Criminal Court Building, where she was considered to be a knowledgeable and hardworking judge.

On the Appellate Court she receives high marks for her legal knowledge and her diligence. She issues written opinions in a timely manner that are well thought out, and she is always prepared for oral arguments. She is also a member of various Supreme Court Committees. Judge Lampkin is found to be Highly Qualified for election to the Appellate Court.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Qualified
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisHighly Qualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoHighly Recommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisHighly Recommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every Cook County judicial contest"

Organizing the Data: Appellate Court - Epstein vacancy

This candidate is unopposed in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.

Eileen O'Neill Burke - #191

Campaign Website

NTNM interview

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Judge Eileen O’Neill Burke is “Highly Qualified” for the office of Justice of the Illinois Appellate Court. Judge Burke was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1990. Judge Burke was elected a Circuit Court Judge in 2008 and is currently assigned to the Law Division's Commercial Calendar. Judge Burke is highly regarded for her knowledge of civil, criminal and appellate law, work ethic, diligence, and outstanding demeanor and temperament.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Hon. Eileen O’Neill Burke became a judge in 2008 and currently sits in the Law Division presiding over commercial calendar cases. Judge Burke’s previous judicial assignments included motion calls and tax and miscellaneous remedies cases. Prior to becoming a judge, Eileen O’Neill Burke served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney for about ten years and then went into private practice as a sole practitioner. Judge Burke is widely respected as a jurist. Lawyers report that she understands the issues, and praise her for her courtroom management skills. She grasps complex issues quickly and her opinions are considered well-reasoned. The Council finds her Qualified for the Appellate Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Eileen O’Neill Burke was elected to the Circuit Court in 2008, retained in 2014 and currently sits in the Law Division on the Commercial Call. Since becoming a judge, she has served various courts of the First Municipal District until joining the Law Division in 2013. Before election to the bench, she had been in private practice after first starting out in the State’s Attorney’s Office. Judge Burke gets high marks from attorneys for her legal knowledge and ability. She has written over 300 opinions on different motions and legal issues and handles a high volume court call. Judge Burke is found to be Qualified for election to the Appellate Court.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Qualified
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoHighly Recommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every Cook County judicial contest"

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Judicial blogger interviewed on NTNM



This particular episode premiered on Christmas Eve. I've recently made another appearance on North Town News Magazine which I will post soon. Neither will cause any of the Sunday morning pundits to lose any sleep about my supplanting them.

NTNM airs Thursdays on CAN-TV at 7:30 p.m., and again on Fridays at 2:30 p.m. It airs in Evanston on Cable Channel 6 on Thursdays at 5:00 p.m. and Sundays at 10:30 p.m. NTNM also airs on a number of cable systems in the suburbs Thursdays and Monday. Check your local listings for air times. Meanwhile, with the permission of NTNM host and moderator Avy Meyers and his entire technical crew Sonny Hersh, you can watch the interview here.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Judge Eileen O'Neill Burke interviewed on NTNM



Judge Eileen O'Neill Burke, the unopposed Democratic candidate for the Epstein vacancy on the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court, was a recent guest on Avy Meyers' North Town News Magazine program and her interview has been posted online.

NTNM airs Thursdays on CAN-TV at 7:30 p.m., and again on Fridays at 2:30 p.m. It airs in Evanston on Cable Channel 6 on Thursdays at 5:00 p.m. and Sundays at 10:30 p.m. NTNM also airs on a number of cable systems in the suburbs Thursdays and Monday. Check your local listings for air times. Meanwhile, with the permission of NTNM host and moderator Avy Meyers and his entire technical crew Sonny Hersh, you can watch the interview here.

Brendan O'Brien interviewed on NTNM



Brendan O'Brien, the unopposed Democratic candidate for the countywide Love vacancy, was a recent guest on Avy Meyers' North Town News Magazine program and his interview has been posted online.

NTNM airs Thursdays on CAN-TV at 7:30 p.m., and again on Fridays at 2:30 p.m. It airs in Evanston on Cable Channel 6 on Thursdays at 5:00 p.m. and Sundays at 10:30 p.m. NTNM also airs on a number of cable systems in the suburbs Thursdays and Monday. Check your local listings for air times. Meanwhile, with the permission of NTNM host and moderator Avy Meyers and his entire technical crew Sonny Hersh, you can watch the interview here.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

To: My Cub fan friends, neighbors and colleagues

From: A lifelong Sox fan

I heard you've had a great season. I'm not surprised. I always thought Joe Maddon was a great manager. I used to root for Tampa Bay in the playoffs in those years when my White Sox weren't in. Too many years.

But, no, don't save room on your bandwagon for me. I'm not jumping on board.

I'm happy for you, sort of, in an impersonal way, the same way I have been happy for the good people of San Francisco or Boston or St. Louis in recent years. I don't mention the Cardinals to be hurtful; I mention them because they won. And I always liked Tony La Russa. You Cub fans wouldn't remember, but he was the White Sox skipper in 1983.

City Hall and the County Building festooned with 'W' flags

I don't hate the Cubs. It's just not my team. I feel about the Cubs about the same way I feel about the San Diego Padres. I'm indifferent. I save all my negative baseball emotions for the Yankees. Although I'm not real fond of Kansas City these days either.

I've watched Cub postseason games before. I was tuned in October 14, 2003 when the Cubs were playing the Marlins. I had a good excuse: Former White Sox shortstop Ozzie Guillen was the Marlins' third base coach. You Cub fans call that the Bartman game. Why, I'll never know. Mr. Bartman was only one of several fans who tried for a foul ball that Moises Alou thought he had a play on. But the floodgates didn't open until later that same inning, when shortstop Alex Gonzalez booted what should have been a routine double play ball. One run scored before the error; seven came after.

I probably will watch the Wild Card games. I'm not sure how I feel about them. The sudden death aspect of the contest is thrilling... but I'm not sure it's baseball. If the Sox were in such a game, I'm not sure I'd be able to watch. Or breathe. I was stressed out beyond belief in 2005. My heart was pounding so loud that I could barely hear the ball strike the ground in Game 2 of the ALCS when A.J. Pierzynski reached first on that famous dropped third strike....



Anyway, like I said, I'm happy for you Cub fans. Really. Just leave me the heck alone. I will be rooting for a team with blue uniforms in these playoffs, but it's not yours. It's Toronto: I want Mark Buehrle to get another ring. I want to see him on the stage in Cooperstown someday -- with a White Sox cap on his plaque.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

What does a slated judicial candidate get for $40,000?

A couple of comments to posts on Page One of the blog deserve a post of their own.

An anonymous commenter wrote:
"Chutzpah" is a Yiddish term that loosely means "shameless audacity" and on this Rosh Hashanah I can think of no better term than to describe the arrogance and imprudence of the Cook County Democratic Party.

First, the slating contribution was $30,000, then by mid-summer they raised it to $35,000, and finally by slating the party upped the contribution to a whopping $40,000. The reason for this 34% from one year to the next? Well, there was none. No explanation was offered.

Then today, the most galling e-mail was sent out by the party telling candidates that in addition to their $40,000 ... they needed to get petitions signed with 1,500 signatures!! If you got just 700 more signatures on your own, you can get on the ballot and save yourself $40,000!!

What exactly does the $40,000 get you? The party does not supply a lawyer, does not get your signatures, and does not pay for any ballot challenge you file or defend. Then on top of it, you are still shaken down by half the committeemen who invite you to attend their birthday party ... for $250, or ask you to join them for a day at the horse races ... for another $500, or invite you to attend their picnic ... for another $250, and on and on it goes. Then there are the extra charges you get from your "campaign consultant," even though you don't know what the hell she did with the first $6,000 you gave her. Then come election time, if you are in a tight race, committeemen will expect candidates to pony up more money if they want to be on that ward's palm cards, and some committeemen will tacitly imply that if you don't cough up a substantial amount of money, they will in fact offer you zero support ... that's zero with a "Z." Oh, and don't forget that there are some notorious committeemen who will also shake down the your opponent and print several sets of palm cards, just enough to make it look legit when you stop by. And there they will sit, in a back room of some ward or township party office gathering dust and mildewing.

Shanah Tovah everyone! May you be inscribed for a good year. That will be $1,500.
That comment is not just bitter, it's funny and, I think, thought-provoking. As was this subsequent comment, which read:
I echo what has been said above. I just received an invitation to Louis Arroyo's "candidates forum" and the "entrance fee" is $750!! In return, you will get to step up to a microphone with 20 other candidates and over the din of the talking guests tell them your name, bar association ratings and mention some charity work you did 17 years ago. No one will hear you or remember you. Arroyo will not know your name when you come in, will not know it when you leave, and will not remember it tomorrow. On election day, you will get nothing for your $750. [Read that last sentence again.]

The Cook County Democratic Party is also holding a fundraiser that you are expected to buy tickets to and attend within days of writing them a $40,000 check. Bigwigs from the CFL will be there, so if you don't attend you do so at your own peril. More money down the drain. It is usually around this time of the campaign when candidates begin trying to convince their kids that Dartmouth is really no better than Moraine Valley Community College.

It is all a big gamble. If you win election, or lose election, at some point you will be in a mortgage foreclosure courtroom as either the judge or the defendant.

I do disagree that the Party does nothing for the $40,000. A week before election, they will send out a mailing with a life sized photograph of Toni Preckwinkle's face on the cover, and inside will be your $40,000 thumbnail photo and name. There will be a number of candidates running for office also listed in the mailer, and most of them will not have paid anything for the mail piece which you have happily subsidized.
I believe these comments raise valid questions and I'd like to see the discussion continue.

So let me add my own two cents. Even if I can't be as amusing.

I suppose I'm being Dr. Pangloss again, but I submit that slating by the Democratic Party in Cook County (and the concomitant $40,000 pledge) buys a judicial candidate two things: (1) Credibility and (2) Access.

Kitchen table candidates can and do win judicial races -- occasionally -- particularly if the candidate is blessed with a sonorous appellation (for any Ivy Leaguers in the audience, that means 'has a good ballot name'). Or if the candidate winds up the only female in a race with three males. Or maybe vice versa.

But slating, at least countywide slating, immediately confers a mantle of credibility on a candidate: This man or woman has some serious pull. This man or woman will be a formidable opponent.

Now, in the bad old days of patronage, when no one got a city or county job without a letter from one's sponsor, frustrated applicants found that there were two types of letters -- one that got you the job and another that merely got you an interview. So it is these days with slating: Some candidates are more slated than others; we can see this in the election results in every recent election cycle. Some candidates get dumped by ward or township organizations that are supposed to be promoting them, no matter what ads they buy for the adbook or how many holes they sponsor at the golf outing.

But nobody on the outside -- meaning 99.99% of the population -- knows who's been SLATED and who's been merely slated until Election Day or shortly before. So even the candidate who's been merely semi-slated, with some major committeemen's fingers discreetly crossed, starts out with a perception of credibility.

The commenter's remarks about petitions should scare every slated candidate down to the marrow: Surely one of the major components of a candidate's credibility is the belief that his or her nominating petitions will be "bulletproof." And I certainly can't think of a slated candidate in Cook County who's been knocked off the ballot for defective petitions or insufficient signatures.

But I no longer believe it to be a fool's errand to think about challenging even a slated candidate's petitions. My belief is not based on empirical studies -- unless the MacArthur people want to throw some money my way, this judicial election watching must necessarily remain a hobby -- but I think a slated candidate would be wise to do more than the Party is apparently asking for, petition-wise, if he or she wants to be assured of "bulletproof" ballot status.

But my perception, or the Party's asking for candidates to help in circulating their own petitions, will not damage the credibility of a slated candidate unless and until one of them gets knocked off the ballot.

So $40,000, for now, at least, buys credibility.

It also buys access.

The commenters are clearly frustrated that, after coughing up $40,000, or promising to, they find they still have to pay for every imaginable event that they might wish to attend (which, if they are serious candidates, should be every imaginable event).

It's like paying to enter Six Flags and finding out that every single ride, even the merry-go-round (do they have a merry-go-round at Six Flags?), costs extra.

So $40,000 does not guarantee admission to anything -- it buys only an invitation to everything.

When I ran for judge in the mid-90s, I would go anywhere I could, see anyone I could. In a good week, I'd get out to two or three events. The slated candidates, however, can go to two or three events a night, and more on weekends, especially if they're smart enough to have, or hire, a driver.

I noticed, when I ran, that I kept running into the same people, over and over again, many of them committed to one of my opponents. In fact, many of those same people were my opponents at any event I was fortunate enough to attend (I ran in crowded races). But I could only go to events that I knew about, whether because someone (one of my opponents, perhaps) tipped me off, or the event was one of the few advertised to the general public. I was on nobody's mailing lists in those days, so I never even heard about most political events, and most of the ones I did hear about had already happened.

You might think that the act of filing petitions alone would put a candidate on at least 80 mailing lists (50 ward and 30 township organizations) -- but, even when politicians are raising money, they apparently still don't want nobody that nobody sent.

And, let me tell you, I was that nobody.

I'm sure it must be numbing for the slated candidate to run into so many of the same people, night after night, often on the same night. But it is in seeing and being seen that the slated candidate can turn the initial perception of credibility into virtual invincibility. Especially in these days of social media, where the candidate takes a few quick selfies with the host at each event, and any other worthy willing to pose, and posts them on Facebook and Twitter and whatever else the kids are into these days. Social media is like a force multiplier: Whatever buzz may be generated for a candidate who shows up at everything, paying a la carte, is magnified by posting the pictures on Facebook. Sure the other candidates and other careful observers may get tired of seeing your face 16 times a day in their 'News Feed' -- but the random 'likes' and reposts from friends, family, law partners, fellow candidates, or whatever, puts your mug on all sorts of people's screens. Half, or maybe three-quarters of the people who vote for you may not remember your name by the time they leave the polling place on Primary Day, but when they're making their mark, they mark you, Mr. or Ms. Social Media, because yours is a name they've seen before.

And you can't get that sort of exposure without being at everything (and letting the world know about it) -- and you can't find out about anything unless you're given access -- and $40,000 gets you that.

Maybe that's too high a price. But what is a better alternative? Readers, what am I missing?

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Shoeless Joe Jackson denied reinstatement. Again.

Several news outlets had this story today: New MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred has denied the latest attempt at reinstating White Sox great Shoeless Joe Jackson (ESPN, SB Nation). The Shoeless Joe Jackson Museum Facebook page has reprinted Commissioner Manfred's July 20, 2015 letter. I've grabbed it and reproduced it below:


As you'll note, the letter recites that Manfred asked his staff to "research what can be learned from the historical record of the 1919 World Series and its aftermath," concluding, "The results of this work demonstrate to me that it is not possible now, over 95 years since those events took place and were considered by Commissioner Landis, to be certain enough of the truth to overrule Commissioner Landis' determinations."

Ah, yes. Kenesaw Mountain Landis. The first Commissioner of Baseball -- and during the first 14 months of his tenure still functioning as a U.S. District Court Judge in Chicago.

Wikipedia is kind to Judge Landis on this issue (noting that Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer said there was no legal impediment to Landis holding down both jobs) and on the race issue as well. However, readers of Bill Veeck's autobiography, Veeck as in Wreck, will remember how Veeck wrote that he called Judge Landis, out of courtesy, when he put together a group to buy the Philadelphia Phillies in 1944. Veeck said he shared his plan to stock the team with Negro League players -- and he suddenly went from front-runner for the franchise to frozen out.

Cub-worshiping website One Bad Century lauds Landis as the man who saved baseball from the evils of gambling, but adds that Landis was "a Chicago Cubs fan long before he took over baseball, and remained a Cubs fan until his dying day. * * * While he was beloved as a trust-busting judge, Landis was also a regular at West Side Grounds, home of the Chicago Cubs. He openly rooted for the Cubs against the White Sox in the 1906 World Series, something White Sox fans never forgot. When the Cubs moved to what is now Wrigley Field, he was a regular there as well. He loved baseball and watched it intently, leaning forward in his seat, devouring every moment of the game."

Real Chicago sports fans understand the need to choose sides. The real scandal is not that Landis was a Cub fan who came down hard on Shoeless Joe and the other Eight Men Out. The real scandal is that Landis banned the Eight Men Out -- while leaving allegations of a similar fix of the 1918 World Series (that the Commissioner's beloved Cubs lost to Babe Ruth and the Boston Red Sox) safely in the realm of rumor. Yet Black Sox pitcher Eddie Cicotte swore that he and his co-conspirators got the idea for throwing the Series from the Cubs.

One Bad Century says that it was a minority stakeholder in the Cubs, Albert Lasker, who pushed for the appointment of Judge Landis in 1920 when a Cub pitcher, Claude Hendrix, was accused of conspiring with gamblers to throw a regular season contest against the Phillies. Landis banned Jackson and Buck Weaver and the other Black Sox -- but Henrdix was allowed to retire.

Wow.

But Commissioner Manfred focused his alleged review very narrowly -- looking only at the 1919 Series and its aftermath, he said -- not at Landis' unequal treatment of players on teams he liked and teams he didn't.

And just for the record, in the 1919 Series, Jackson led all batters with a .375 average, going 12 for 32 -- including three doubles and a homer -- hitting 5 for 12 with runners in scoring position. He scored five times, drove in six runs and committed no errors. Evidence of Jackson's complicity in any conspiracy to throw the Series is thin at best, fraudulent at worst, and surely tainted.

And there's one other thing: Commissioner Landis was hired to free baseball from the grip of gambling. But times change. Fashions change. And gambling seems back in fashion with baseball bigwigs:


It's just Shoeless Joe Jackson's status that does not change.

Neil Steinberg's column makes a good point today

OK, so I'm taking the link to the column (and this picture) from Steinberg's blog -- have you tried using the Sun-Times' website lately? I read the column in the paper, on the train. Real newspapers never lose signal in the subway.

Anyway, Steinberg writes about his recent experience serving on a jury in a rear-end subro case. The jury wound up deadlocked (5-1 in favor of plaintiff) and jury foreman Steinberg wasn't pleased with that aspect of the experience. He concludes, however,
[I]t's a flawed system—the guy was negligent— but one person can derail the whole thing. Still, it works, sort of. Everyone was exceedingly polite, and thanked us for us doing our civic duty. Compared to the bloody chaos in most of the world, our justice system is a gift.
Our justice system is flawed -- and as lawyers we can't help sometimes but get focused on the problems that we see in our varying practices. But we need to keep in mind, and to keep proclaiming to the public, the larger, and far more important, point, that Mr. Steinberg makes this morning: "Compared to the bloody chaos in most of the world, our justice system is a gift."

Monday, August 24, 2015

A spam comment that was just too crazy not to share (and clean enough that I could)

Submitted by a commenter this past weekend for a Page One post about CBA ratings in contested judicial races on the November 2014 ballot, this gem:
Yes! Finally something about hunting wild game

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Russ Stewart reports on the recent judicial pre-slating

Park Ridge attorney Russ Stewart, who has written a political column for the Nadig Newspapers since about forever, has weighed in on last month's Cook County Democratic Party Pre-Slating with a column entitled, "In Cook County, Judge-Making is Like Sausage Making." The link will take you to the complete column; here's a brief excerpt:
According to insiders, the candidates likely to be slated for the Circuit Court are Aleks Gillespie, Maureen Hannon, Alison Conlon, Brendan O'Brien, Daniel Patrick Duffy, Carolyn Joan Gallagher and Rossana Fernandez, Travis Richardson and John Lyke (who are black), and Devlin Schoop, who is backed by the gay bar association but who is not gay.

Alternates are Chaudhuri, Pat Spratt, Pat Heneghan, Carolyn Joan Gallagher, Mary Melchor and Joe Cleary.
Be sure to read the entire piece.

The Cook County Democratic Party's slating meeting has now been set for August 18 and 19.

Friday, May 29, 2015

Judicial blogger to appear on upcoming NTNM



Yours truly is honored to be a guest on an upcoming episode of Avy Meyers' North Town News Magazine.

This interview is scheduled to air on CAN TV, Channel 19 in Chicago, on Thursday, June 11 at 7:30 p.m. (a rebroadcast will follow on June 12 at 2:30 p.m.). The program will be aired for Evanston viewers on June 14 at 5:00 p.m.

NTNM also airs on many other local north and northwest suburban cable systems. Check local listings for airtimes in your area.

My thanks to NTNM host and moderator Avy Meyers and his entire technical crew Sonny Hersh for allowing me to repost this interview now.

NTNM is one of the few programs to actively seek out and provide a platform for Cook County judicial candidates to present themselves to voters. Candidates or their representatives should contact Avy Meyers directly (email and phone contact is available on the NTNM website).

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

A call from AT&T... maybe

The Caller ID read "Toll Free Calle" – I think it safe to assume the last word was supposed to be ‘Caller’ – but no other identification was provided.

Most lawyers have staff to screen calls. Even many solos still have assistants who talk to potential clients, mollify existing clients, set up depositions and hang up on sales calls. But I have largely abandoned hope of ever hiring staff, all because employees have this all-too-reasonable desire to be paid on a regular basis. I am forced to listen to my own messages.

This automated message must have begun before my voice mail greeting had ended because the recording picked up in mid-word: "...vice provider about all your service options. A delayed response may result in an increased service rate or involuntary transfer of your business service plan. Please press 1 now to be connected. Please disregard this message if your business has already consulted an AT&T Solution Provider and applied a business service solution. If not, please press 1 now or call [not the number displayed on the caller ID – not even the same area code] between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to speak to a service representative."

Now, I ask you... would you press 1? Would you call the number? Why?

This had clumsy, East-European-or-maybe-Nigerian-drain-your-bank-account scam written all over it, right?

Well, maybe not.

I ignored a number of these calls over a period of time -- and then my April office phone bill more than doubled.

Apparently, these really were calls from AT&T. Or at least some of them.

Now I don't know if you've ever had the misfortune of having to call AT&T. Most lawyers in firms have been spared this because they have office managers who are paid, in part, to bear this enormous burden. So let me try and explain it this way: If anyone like Ernestine still works there, she is very well guarded. The guard is a disembodied robot voice. The recorded male voice is preternaturally chipper. "I see you are calling from" -- and then he recites the number -- "is this the number you are calling about?" This unnatural cheerfulness only serves to aggravate me more. It is particularly galling when calling to report a service outage -- no, it's not the number I'm calling from you mindless mess of microchips -- if I could call from that number I sure as heck wouldn't be calling you!

Mr. Cheerful always wants to know if I want to pay my bill. The first 17 or 18 menu options that he offers all have to do with paying the bill. I will admit that I have exhibited a certain lack of patience on occasion when waiting for these often redundant and always unhelpful options to end. It is just possible, I must concede, that I have, on more than one occasion, attempted to interrupt the machine's recitation by stabbing zero, zero, zero on the telephone keypad and roaring, "I WANT TO SPEAK WITH A HUMAN BEING! NOW!"

In later, more reflective, moments, I have been forced to consider the possibility that, when screaming and stabbing at the keypad, no sane human being would want to speak with me.

At some point, Mr. Cheerful changed tack. My button-pushing and howling have had no effect whatsoever on the cheery affect of Mr. Cheerful. "In a few short words," he gushed, "tell me about why you are calling. For example, you can say, 'I want to pay my bill,' or 'I really want to pay my bill.'"

Granted, my response was probably not as specific as the designers of the system expected. But it was heartfelt nonetheless. "AT&T is a bloated, corrupt monopoly that was justifiably destroyed by the Federal Courts," I said, "only to be allowed to reassemble, through the criminal negligence of our elected representatives and government regulators, like the mythical Hydra, into a monster more terrible than before."

There was a noticeable pause. When Mr. Microchips spoke again, a note of concern has, for the first time, infected his cheerful tone. "I'm sorry, I didn't get that." But Mr. Cheerful rallied immediately, back on script, "In a few short words," he repeated, "tell me about why you are calling. For example, you can say, 'I want to pay my bill,' or 'I really want to pay my bill.'"

I was in fact calling about my bill and I unloaded on Mr. Cheerful once more. "I am not paying my bill! I am not paying this outrageous amount!"

It is all too easy for me to spare you the agony of how I got from this point to a very wary call-taker. I simply can't recall how I made it. The red mist swam before my eyes. I thundered. I shrieked. I may have sobbed. A few non-vital blood vessels burst, I'm sure, along the way.

The bottom line was that my "service plan" had indeed expired and I was being billed a la carte prices instead of the bundled price I had heretofore endured. The AT&T call-taker made an effort to sound sympathetic: "We don't want to change the pricing every year or so," he said, "but we are required by regulations to do this." This would be comforting, I suppose, or at least give me the opportunity to deflect my ire from AT&T to the government regulators were I not pretty well convinced that AT&T pretty much dictates those few regulations it will tolerate from a compliant government.

When one has no choice at all, one can only try and be gracious and take the punishment meted out: I would be forced to pay this ridiculously high April bill but, as a reward for calling, I could look forward to a new bundle of varied prices that somehow added up to only just a little bit more than I'd been paying previously. I knew I was supposed to be grateful for such condescension from my corporate betters. But I still had one more appeal to reason left: You know, I said, if you really wanted customers to re-configure their plans every year or two you could include a notice in the bill. The bill is the one communication from AT&T that I know is genuine. The anonymous phone calls or junk mass-mailings might or might not be for real, I explained.

Alternatively, I suggested, there's an AT&T store in the Loop. I can pay my bill there. Why can't I sign up for any required new rates there?

The AT&T call-taker waited me out, patiently, I thought. But he was dismissive. "We can't do that," he said, or, "That's not the way we do things."

And, indeed, why should AT&T change? AT&T cadged an extra $200+ from me in April -- multiply that over how many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of similarly-situated small businesses and you begin to see the enormous profitability of the scheme -- and, as long as I insist on a landline for my office phone, I have nowhere else to go.

I am actively rethinking this whole need-for-a-landline thing.

Meanwhile, for the time being, I believe I can once again use my office phone as a tool in my legal practice, secure that I am back in the good graces of AT&T.

Or am I?

A week or so after the events herein recounted, around the time I reluctantly wrote that enormous check, I received a call from an unidentified toll free number. As before, the prerecorded message began before my voice mail greeting asked for a message: "...vice provider about all your service options. A delayed response may result in an increased service rate or involuntary transfer of your business service plan. Please press 1 now to be connected. Please disregard this message if your business has already consulted an AT&T Solution Provider and applied a business service solution. If not, please press 1 now or call [not the number displayed on the caller ID – not even the same area code] between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to speak to a service representative." Yes, it was the exact same message I had previously disregarded to my subsequent (and expensive) regret. But, surely, it was just a case of AT&T being such a bloated monstrosity that this computer hadn't yet gotten the memo from the other computer that I had recently signed on for another hitch, right?

Then, a week or two ago, there was still another call from an unidentified toll-free number. Like we were taught about Homer's Iliad and Odyssey in high school, AT&T apparently likes to start its voice mails in medias res: "... AT&T business telephone service. Action is required to complete your pending service migration. AT&T recently replaced your business DSL service or installed new high-speed Uverse service at your business location as Phase One of our digital service migration. If your business utilizes two business lines or less, please press 1 now to schedule the voice segment of the service migration. AT&T will now complete Phase Two of your service migration by increasing your Internet speed up to 45 megabytes and/or add Uverse business voice service for less than your previous service cost. As an existing AT&T customer using Uverse, your business qualifies for up to a $100 Visa gift card for this service upgrade. This service will be less than your previous service cost. Please press 1 now to speak to an AT&T business solution provider about all your service upgrade options. Please press 1 now. Please disregard this message if your business has already provided an AT&T business solution provider and upgraded your Uverse service. If not, please call [a different toll-free number than the one allegedly calling] between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to speak to a representative."

But I don't have Uverse. Well, I do, but for my suite as a whole, not for my individual business. And I have three lines. Does this even apply to me?

I promise you, Perry Mason never had to answer these kinds of questions. I've never seen the show, so I can't be sure, but I doubt that even Better Call Saul has had to bother with this stuff. But, as was said in E.T., so it may also be said here: This is reality, Greg.

Monday, May 25, 2015

Norwood Park remembers -- 2015 Memorial Day Parade, continued

This post continues from a post on Page One.

Here are more pictures from today's Norwood Park Memorial Day Parade. For even more parade pictures, scroll down this page or click this link.


State Rep. Michael McAuliffe and Cook County Commissioner Peter Silvestri had a vehicle in the parade

A group from Garvey School



















 A group from Onahan School


An anti-O'Hare noise group, fairchicago.org, had a contingent... and a pretty clever sign: "Ground Control to Mayor Rahm."


A group from Resurrection High School participated.



Cub Scout Pack 3958 from Norwood Park Lutheran Church