Tickets for the event are $150 each, and sponsorships are available ($500 - Sponsor, $1,000 - Silver Sponsor, $2,500 - Gold Sponsor). Listed as co-sponsors of the event are St. Sen. Donne E. Trotter, Ald. Roderick Sawyer, Ald. Michelle Harris, Ald. David Moore, St. Rep. Elgie Sims, St. Rep Marcus Evans, Ms. Stephanie Coleman, Commissioner Howard Medley (Ret), Atty. Luke Casson, Atty. John Fotopoulos, Atty. Matthew Hurst, Atty. Burton Odelson, Dr. Phyllis Hayes, Dr. Angelia Roberts Watkins, Ms. Crystal Brown Black, Mr. Harold Davis, Mr. Leonard Noble, Ms. Peytyn Wilborn, and Mr. Craig Wimberly.
For more information about the event, or to reserve a ticket, email electjudgemaryamahmad@gmail.com.
Some more damning news came out today on Ms. Crawford, and from what I read, it looks like the ARDC is recommending suspension. But can the Supreme Court finalize this before the election? Aren't there appeal rights?
ReplyDeleteI do not know either Ms. Crawford or Judge Ahmad, so please don't take the following as an endorsement. We have a number of judges and lawyers over the years who have either demonstrated some unfortunate serious mental health issues or have done horrible things, like embezzle money from clients. The wheels of justice in those cases moved VERY slowly. There is something about the Crawford case that is unusual in my opinion. I have never seen a case fast tracked so rapidly. What Ms. Crawford allegedly did could fall into the category of "bad judgment." But are Crawford's alleged actions so heinous, so harmful that she needs to be prevented from having the voters decide her fate in November? Or the JIB at a later date?
As with many cases, I believe you can find those who believe Ms. Crawford's actions were harmless, others who may believe it was very poor judgment but forgivable, and others yet who may believe the actions are disqualifying.
Ms. Crawford won the primary fair and square. She won the right to be on the general election ballot, not eliminated by a perfunctory hearing to benefit a connected write in candidate who lost the primary. We have had a number of politicians who were indicted or comatose before the general election and they were not removed. And with respect to the cases I am thinking of, the indicted and comatose candidates still won the general election.
It appears that the Crawford case somehow moved a lot faster than other disciplinary cases. The proof may be in the pudding as they say, or on the fundraiser invitation. Elected Democratic officials, some of them Democratic committeemen, are on Judge Ahmad's invitation to oppose the winner of the Democratic Primary in favor of a write-in candidate who lost the primary. It seems odd that so many Democratic officials would publicly come out against the winner of the Democratic primary when she has not been charged, let alone convicted of anything. These same officials backed Jesse, Jr., Mel Reynolds, and John Stroger, Sr., for election when two of them were indicted and one was on his death bed.
Ms. Crawford's fate seems sealed given the positioning of the stars, but the broader question for those who do not endorse kangaroo courts or a presumption of guilt is what did all those Democratic officials on the invitation know and when did they know it? How could they possibly anticipate the actions of the Supreme Court before the ARDC had even issued its findings?
-- White Lady Who Never Read a Book in Her Life
Dorothy Brown was unindicted and the Party jettisoned her before the Primary opting for Michelle Harris.
ReplyDeleteNot a single thing has changed regarding the allegations and black cloud hovering over Brown's head, and now after winning the primary, all those "good ethics in government" democrats who treated her like she had the plague are putting her on their Palm cards.
Brown was a stain on democracy before the primary, but now the party wants Dems to vote for someone that only months ago they tarred and feathered in a public shaming ritual at Erie Cafe. But Dorothy will preserve the status quo, read: dozens of Grade 24 and 23 positions for Mike Madigan lackies.
Crawford is the latest sacrificial lamb. The party feels Ahmad will be better for them on the bench. If Crawford had big juice or was someone the Dems could count on while on the bench, there would be no Kangaroo Court at this early juncture and the party would be lamenting the raw deal she was receiving.
PS: What do you think is worse, putting on a robe a couple months before you are sworn in, or sneaking a loaded 9 mm handgun into a commercial flight potentially potentially causing mayhem if that gun fell into the wrong hands?
Sen. Donne Trotter is quick to forget that he was a mouse hair away from loosing everything and going to federal prison. It's a shame he does not give Crawford the same break.
Crawford is accused of fraud by the ARDC. There are five elements of fraud, three of which do not apply to Crawford. I hope the downstate justices ask themselves if fraud was proven. We know how the Chicago 3 will vote.
ReplyDeleteIt shows that when a decision is made about your fate, the facts will be manipulated to produce the intended result. (see Rahm residency before appellate court).
Crawford is being played. An injunction should be sought in fed court. Separation of powers and due process issues all over this one, not to mention usurping voter rights.
The voters in the first subcircuit voted aganist Admad, she tried for the associate Judge and lost and now she is walking on the grave of Ms. Crawford.
ReplyDeleteGod doesnot like ugly!!!
what you put out in life, comes right back to you!!!
Shame on the ARDC and Shame, shame on Admad. Lets see who attends Admad's fundraiser.