Since the linked roundup post appeared, I've received an email from Republican candidate Laura J. Morask responding to the new, harsh evaluation of her candidacy issued by the Chicago Council of Lawyers for the general election. (The entire text of the new evaluation can be accessed at the linked post.)The Council initially found Morask "not recommended" because she did not participate in the Alliance of Bar Associations screening process. Morask has said that she could not comply with the tight Alliance screening deadline because of a planned family vacation. But the new evaluation suggested that Morask had an ulterior motive for ducking the Council evaluation, namely, trying to avoid calling attention to past accusations of prosecutorial misconduct.
From Morask's email:
I am dumbfounded that the Chicago Council of Lawyers would be so dishonest and misleading to the voting public as to print their "conspiracy theory" as to why I did not participate in their ratings. The simple fact is that had they or anyone else asked or researched the truth about these accusations at all, they could find that I had a full and complete hearing in the ARDC, the board that regulates conduct and was completely cleared. The chronology painted by the Council of Lawyers is a complete lie and extremely misleading to the public to say an intentional pattern of misconduct occurred. I have prosecuted the highest number of jury trials in Cook County and to have three cases (not nine) in which my sarcasm has been criticized is by far the best record of any attorney much less prosecutor. Only one of these cases was ever reversed and our office appealed it to the highest court. If one looks at the record instead of the conspiracy oriented drivel written by the Council you can see the following.
People v. SanAntone Moss-prosecuted in October 1998-jury convicted, sentenced to death for multiple murder, Govenor Ryan communted in Mass Commutations.
People v. Roy Fluker-prosecuted in December 1998-Conviction and sentenced to 35 yrs.
People v. Evan Griffith-prosecuted in June, 2001, sentenced to life for second murder.
People v. Roy Fluker conviction reversed in opinion December 2000 (criticism of closing argument allowed by trial court pursuant to pre-trial proper motion)
People v. Moss-appeal and conviction affirmed (with criticism of closing argument allowed by Trial Judge) October, 2001(commuted in mass Ryan commutations)
People v. Griffith-appealed with affirmance (criticism of my conduct which was pursuant to pre-trial motions allowed by Trial Judge) in opinion issued in 2002 which was then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court by the defendant where no less a person than the State's Attorney of Cook County made a special appearance to argue to the Justices on behalf of my integrity and lack of prosecutorial misconduct and to decry the misleading push to make it appear as if a pattern existed when in fact the above chronology demonstrates the simple fact that the three cases were prosecuted before the first opinion issued. In other words, I never flouted any court ruling or admonishment. This fact was recognized by no less august a tribunal than the ARDC, and the Chicago Bar Association and the Northwest Suburbuan Bar who all had the same exhaustive application wherein one must attach any complaints.
It is dumbfounding to me that the Council of Lawyers violated their oath as responsible lawyers and citizens by printing what they did. Mr. Devine and every single judge involved in any of these cases will and has vouched for me repeatedly to the bar associations that are the major peer reviewed bars-the CBA, and NWSBA. The Alliance has demonstrated on prior occasions their agenda as a mere glance at their application reflects a bias that is not appropriate for judicial candidates. Unlike my opponent I have sat on the judicial evaluation and investigation committees of many of the Alliance and the CBA.
Posts
5 comments:
What is the Alliance's agenda and what is it's bias? Why did you only identify the minority bar associations of the Alliance in your ad in the Des Plaines Journal as prejudiced against you? Does the ISBA and Women's Bar share the Alliance's agenda and bias (they are also part of the Alliance). Is the ISBA and the Women's Bar "out to get you" too?
I wonder if she would comment on Judge Bucklo's opinion of November 18, 2008, in U.S. ex rel Evan Griffith v. Donald Hulick. At least nobody conspired to issue the opinion before the election.
I find irony in Anonymous's attack against Ms. Morask's use of sarcasm directed toward the murderers and rapists in the courtroom trials. Obviously, you have never witnessed Ms. Loza in action. Her inappropriate use of dramatics and false accusations would be quite humorous were it not for the fact that people are hurt terrribly by her actions. If she is representing an alcoholic, she blames the opposing party. Even given the dates of marriage and dates of birth of children, she can't get the sequences correct in her briefs and motions. Have you ever seen her briefs? The woman can't cut and paste properly, and her sentences are so jumbled up that they are humorous and just don't even make sense. One of her tactics is to stall and not complete the discovery process for her client, even after she is given sanctions! At least Morask is working against the bad guys and at least honors the proper procedures. Sure can't say that about Loza's work ethics (does she even have ethics?)
Dear Anonymous;
I do not hide behind the shield of the word "anonymous". I might point out what need was there to issue this before the election? This defamatory damage had already been perpetuated by the Council of Lawyers and Ms. Loza and given to Pioneer Press by same. This is the exact same case((From June 2001)of which I had been cleared. Nothing has changed other than I have actually done Fifty five additional murder and rape trials on behalf of victims across Cook County, been elected twice to position of Maine Township Trustee and been promoted to and sucessfully supervised all of the crimes coming into the westside of Harrison & Kedzie for four years. It simply amazing to me-I actually do cases and go on the frontlines (on behalf of victims who have lost their lives, their children, their possessions, been attacked in their homes, beaten by their spouses, sexually assualted, to name a few) yet the big issue to people like you is some case from almost ten years ago where a defendant who was given shelter as a homeless runaway by a fifty four year old victim then turned around and robbed, beat, stabbed, hammered, and cut to death this victim in his own home. Here are the facts of Evan Griffith: Defendant chose to run away for the second or third time from his home in Pennsylvania, came to Chicago where instead of going to live with his own sister, he prevails on this 54 year old man who was the Community Organzier for the downtrodden in his neigborhood to take him in and give him shelter. Victim had told defendant he was in the process of collecting donations for this community group so defendant thought the victim kept this money in his safe and decided to rob him of it. While the victim was out running errands, the defendant chose to rob him and break into his safe. When the victim got home "too early", defendant attacked him so viciously that the hammer he initally used broke. Defendant then picked up a knife and stabbed so hard and so viciously, that too broke and defendant then picked up a scissors stabbing him repeatedly until that too broke and finally defendant used a final knife to stab him repeatedly. After victim lay dying in a pool of blood, defendant went into his back pocket and stole all him money. He then fled the scene and told three different friends of his that he needed their help to escape the Law because he "had killed the old guy for his money". Two of them helped him flee to wisconsin where ultimately he was arrested. He confessed numerous times and pled guilty to this crime. Defendant then went to Pontiac to serve his 35 year sentence. In prison, defendant killed a prison inmate and he received the death penalty in Livingston County. It was not until then, that defendant through his current lawyer came up with the idea to attack the original plea agreement as a means of filing a PC on the Prison Inmate murder. Many years after this defendant chose to plea guilty, he filed a 2-1401 Petition to set aside that plea.(Which in fact was the wrong type of pleading)
Solely because of a technicality in the plea admonishments from 1985 (of which I was not a part obviously) wherein a judge who is now deceased, as part of his constitutional plea warnings advised defendant that he was eligibile for the death penalty when in fact because of his age, he was not,that plea was reversed and set for trial. I was the attorney then assigned to this case. On literally the eve of trial, after the State answered ready, the defense ambushed with this new defense of Post-Traumatic Stress disorder based on alleged childhood beatings of the defendant and even then refused to tender their experts or their reports as required by Supreme Court Rule. The defense was given a huge leeway, allowed many continuances and allowed to present this defense which was against all existing state precedent. Defendant was convicted by a jury of his peers of felony murder because the evidence then and now is overwhelming. It is these defense lawyers who have made me their personal vendetta over the last ten years who use many of these bar groups (and many of them are used unwittingly by them) to issue such defamatory comments as made by the Council of Lawyers and other bar groups. The reason they are defamatory is because many of the things written by them and written in this opinion NEVER HAPPENED. May I ask if you have read the actual transcripts or know the realities of this double murderer? Here is another undisputable truth;
This very case with same record and facts went to oral argument before the Illinois Supreme Court in 1994. The State's Attorney of Cook County personally argued to the Justices to defend my integrity, honor and ethics against the vicious, unmerited attacks levied by two members of the defense bar and responded to all questions by the Justices. Were you there? I think not. So before you write future things, apprise yourself of the facts. The merits of the respective briefs were then argued by a very senior level prosecutor and The State's Attorneys position then and now was that there was no misconduct.
Behind the scenes, however the defense up to their same old pattern of this bizarre personal vendetta had "dug up" my marriage license 24 hours earlier as if this were something dirty. My marriage was performed 20 years previous by one of the now Supreme Court Justices. The defense filed an "emergency" order to recuse him and he recused himself. As a result, when the Justices voted on the case, they voted three-three, or in other words a tie. A tie in the Illinois Supreme Court means the Appellate Court opinion is upheld. Unfortuntely, for me personally, there was no written opinion reflective of the actual truth as shown in the record of proceedings. In a tie, there is simply a memorandum order of one sentence. After this "tie", the defendant appealed to the US Supreme Court who refused to take the case. They then filed a federal habeas based on the very same claims that the Illinois Supreme Court, the original trial court, 12 jurors, and the ARDC had rejected. Yes, Mr. Anonymous, because of the publicity surrounding the case due to the fact that the State's Attorney of Cook County himself was arguing on behalf of this case, the case was referred to the ARDC. My conduct was fully investigated,folowing depostions, testimony and looking at the actual record, the case was CLOSED. One federal Judge without oral argument-made a ruling inconsistent with all US Supreme and State Court precedent with a remedy that is illegal. Again, and most unfortunately in my opinion I was never apprised or even given a chance to defend myself from these attacks-so maybe you should read the record of the actual trial before you too hop on the bandwagon of this case and this cause. Thank you for your attention.
How judicial of you. Nice temperment.
Post a Comment