Sunday, March 26, 2017

2018 campaign website announced for Judge Fredrick H. Bates

A campaign website has been established for Judge Fredrick H. Bates. That's a link to the website in the preceding sentence; when there are a few more of these, this will be added to the list of campaign websites I'll set up in the blog sidebar.

Judge Bates currently serves by appointment to the Lampkin vacancy in the 2nd Subcircuit. His campaign website touts his two years' experience as a Circuit Court judge (prior to his current appointment, Judge Bates served in a different, countywide vacancy), 15 years as an administrative law judge, and 15 more as an attorney. The site lists attorneys Louis C. Cairo, of Goldberg Weisman & Cairo, and Larry Rogers Jr., of Powers, Rogers & Smith as campaign co-chairs (Rogers also serves as a Commissioner of the Board of Review). The website also lists 34th Ward Ald. Carrie M. Austin, 9th Ward Ald. Anthony Beale, 21st Ward Ald. Howard B. Brookins, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, 6th Ald. Roderick Sawyer, and Cook County Recorder of Deeds Karen Yarbrough are listed as honorary campaign co-chairs.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

A good man. A good judge. The best of luck to you.

Anonymous said...

Impressive list of honorary co-chair and endorsers. I wonder if it will be enough to get him in this time around. I also wonder with so much political backing, why couldn't he secure an associate position after he lost last time. His resume is very impressive.

Anonymous said...

where is judge Richardson sitting now? 111th street?

Anonymous said...

How many past presidents of the CCBA and/or BWLA will be running in 2? How many spouses of retired judges are trying to intimidate candidates out of running in "their seat?"

Anonymous said...

This guy will work like a dog to win. Less territory to cover than a countywide. Also heard he has some help from a little sneak (and former judge) who knows how to work precincts. If you want to target a siting judge, there are easier targets than this one. Go get 'em big dog. Woof woof!

Anonymous said...

Unlike the last five commenters, I, admittedly, am not a fan of Judge Bates. I have always found him to be rather arrogant both on and off the Bench. A campaign committee with close to 80 people on it scares away no one and says a lot about the candidate's mindset. Subcircuit races are very expensive and Committeeman support can not overcome a female challenger with a great ballot name. If Judge Bates added a few more names to his campaign committee he would have more names than he does dollars in his campaign account; which stands at $82.20 per the last reported quarter. To our novice armchair quarterbacks out there studying judicial elections - The State Board of Election Website is where you go to conduct opposition research. I disagree with a comment above that warns Judge Bates is not an easy target. Any sitting Judge is an easy target, and Judge Bates is no exception. The only way to guarantee a win is to run unopposed and I doubt a single judicial race will be unopposed this cycle.

Anonymous said...

He did not make associates last time because he did not apply. He was a late comer to the slating process but got first alternate. Don't worry about him raising money he spent over 250K in his last run. He handles his courtroom well and is a good judge.

Anonymous said...

Folks, set your Betamax to record “Feud” on FX, it is the real-life story about a judicial campaign consultant and the behind the scenes making of “Whatever Happened to Mary Kay?”

Viewers immediately become ensnared in this horror classic from it’s opening scene when Mary Kay performs “I’ve Written a Letter to Paddy,” -- a reference to a powerful north side alderman and former classmate who gave-in in her demonic whims and demands over the decades. Paddy introduces her to this friends, and her consulting gig takes off. The once shy and demure Mary Kay grew uncontrollable with power as cigar-smoking half-wits numbering in the 80s coddled her and by the turn of the century she could no longer differentiate between right and wrong. Among her many dirty tricks, prior to the election each cycle, she would befriend a 19th ward patronage hack working in the city’s rodent control department and gather “good luck gifts” that she would mail to opponents … or clients behind on their payments. She would scream with delight as she stood outside while they opened their “gifts.”

In one of the film’s more horrifying moments, a furious Cook County Democratic Party chairman (played by Victor Buono) threatens to expose her, but he knows she has the dirt on him as well. “If only I was not Chair!!” he shouts, and Mary Kay cackles in return, “But ya are, Joe!! Ya are in the chair!!” The chairman hides his disgust and at Mary Kay’s insistence, he is forced to play the piano at Erie CafĂ© as she sings her signature song, “I’ve Written a Letter to Paddy” to stunned onlookers now 50 years since her start while wearing the identical outfit she wore in the 1960s.

In the film’s climax, Mary Kay drags an emaciated and weak party chairman to the water’s edge where he is attacked by flies, withers in the hot sun and is close to succumbing. Pleading for help, he tells Mary Kay that none of her dirty tricks really worked over the years. He tells her that she never helped any get elected at all, that it simply came down to a good name and ballot position. Their 50-year feud had been for naught.

At that moment, Sheriff Tom Dart in his brown Mount Carmel windbreaker approaches from the distance along with several Daley Center Deputies recovering from bariatric surgery on light duty restrictions. The camera zooms in on Mary Kay’s face as she contemplates that she was scorned for nothing. She turns to the chairman and says, “Ya mean all this time we could have been friends?”

The film credits roll and the camera pulls away as Dart and his deputies begin to build large sand castles to cover the party chairman in retaliation for his support of Rahm for mayor years earlier. As the chairman is begin covered by sand, Mary Kay twirls to the delight of vacationing 10th ward onlookers as the sun sets over the Cal-Sag channel.

Anonymous said...

Bates,
Are you worried that the information on
Fox News in February of 2016 will surface again in your race in the 2nd subcircuit?

Anonymous said...

Ooohhhh maybe I should go rent an apartment/townhouse next to Judge Bates shabby rental in the 2nd subcircuit! I want in! I guess if he wins he will actually purchase in a better area of the 2nd. I hope all of the endorsements work for him. The question is will the constituents in the 2nd even pay attention or even care who the committeemen endorse???

Jack Leyhane said...

Anon 3/29 @9:19 -- Your comment about last year's Channel 32 story about Bates was close enough to civil that I let it through. There were other references to the story that I flushed. The allegations will resurface somewhere, regardless of whether I kept them out here.

And letting this one through gave me the opportunity to review the post I put up last March 7 about the story. (The link embedded in that post to the original Channel 32 report is still operative as of this morning.)

I have no idea what did or did not happen 29 years ago. But, rereading my post this morning, I stand by my conclusion that the Channel 32 story was insufficiently reported. One key point is that the---whatever did or did not happen in the past---the various bar associations have not withdrawn their prior, favorable assessments of Judge Bates.

Now I do not hold bar associations to be infallible, even on matters of faith and morals. But, in my time on this beat, I have seen a number of situations where a bar group has changed a candidate's rating when new, previously undisclosed facts were called to the attention of a bar group's JEC. And an attempted coverup is almost always viewed as harshly, or more, as the crime itself.

Just as I can't say what happened years ago, particularly based on a story that seems to have made no effort to obtain and review public records generated at and shortly after the alleged incident, I also can't say what was disclosed, or not, to the various bar groups about that incident or whether the bar groups believed all, some, or none of the allegations and counter-allegations made. JEC processes are confidential. But the favorable ratings issued before the Channel 32 report were not changed afterwards and that is, in my view at least, very significant.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:27 was right about one thing: in 2018 everybody gets an opponent, male or female, black, Hispanic, yes, even the Irish. Countywide or subcircuit. You could be the bastard love child of Ed Burke and Carrie Austin and your name is Maureen Bridget Shaquana Washington Jackson O'Neill O'Brien Burke, and YOU will STILL get an opponent. Even I will have an opponent. But fortunately for me, my opponent will be my third split personality and I will convince her to drop out so that our parents -- Ed and Carrie -- tell Tim to make her an associate so she can save all that dough that would have been spent on a campaign. That's right -- the party can't save you, endorsements can't save you, your robe can't save you, and your race (both racial identity and the contest in which you file) cannot save you from getting an opponent. Everybody gets an opponent. Hell Eileen, Bertina, John, Maureen, Brendan, Marianne, Evie, Richard, Matthew, Bill and Ed would all have opponents had they waited to run this cycle instead of last. Welcome to the new normal. Toni, Joe, and not even Mr. White Walker Mike Madigan himself can spare you an opponent. May the best rat win.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Anon 8:58 is such a killjoy. Is there any bastard love child combination that works? I have appeared before this recent crop of judges in traffic the past few months and some of them just have these weird bug-eyed looks. Could these be the love children of which you speak? They all won. Oh wait, they were opposed mostly. Shucks. Back to inbreeding with the leprechauns, I guess.

Anonymous said...

Everything you said is true!

Anonymous said...

Jack,

As you always do, you reported the known facts of the Judge Bates controversy fairly; both when it first came to light in 2016, and at this time. The actual allegations that gave rise to the controversy are ancient and concern me very little. The real issue is how all the involved parties reacted the news story. The Supreme Court, through their spokesperson, responded by stating Judge Bates' past as a criminal defendant and civil defendant was not disclosed to them and they rely on Bar Association Evaluations. It sounded like they pointed the finger at the Bar Associations. There was never a further response from the Supreme Court, any of the Bar Associations, or Judge Bates himself. Although Judge Bates, it was reported, said the news story itself was politically motivated. Then, Judge Bates lost his election and was reappointed to a vacancy in a subcircuit he did not even reside in.

So what happened?

Did Judge Bates disclose to the various Bar Associations of his past? The Bar Association applications clearly call for such disclosure. If he did not, in my opinion, Judge Bates lacks the necessary honesty and character to be a Judge and the Judicial Inquiry Board should investigate. If he did disclose his past how come this information was not communicated to the Supreme Court?

Many, if not all, Bar Association Presidents, JEC members, Justices and Judges, and Judicial candidates, read this Blog on a very regular basis. As Judge Bates is running for office again, transparency requires clarification from the Bar Associations and Judge Bates himself regarding this issue.

So Judge Bates, did you or did you not disclose that you were both a criminal and civil defendant to the Bar Associations or directly to the Supreme Court? You chose to again run for Judge and this question needs to be answered.

Anonymous said...

Supreme Court justices read this blog? Noooooo! Get back to work Mary Jane! We eagerly await your decision concerning the 2nd and 4th subs.

Anonymous said...

Theis is appointing Howard Brookins to the Willis vacancy. Press release on Tuesday.

Anonymous said...

Theis to announce Marian Perkins appointed to Willis vacancy. Press release to post Wednesday.

Anonymous said...

Theis is not appointing Perkins to the Willis's Vacancy.
These comments are getting out of control.

Jack Leyhane said...

Anon 4/4 @10:40 p.m. and Anon 4/5 @12:19 p.m. -- One of you is certainly right.