Editor's note: Corruption in Illinois goes right to the top of the legal system...ARDC...Supreme Court...Probate Courts... Imagine how the U.S. GIs forced to work as slaves in the Berga Concentration Camp in WWII felt when the Nazi's in charge had their sentences commuted. Shame on the Supreme Court Justices! Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Illinois Supreme Court rules Burge can keep his pension
Former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge leaves the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago on Tuesday morning, June 29, 2010. (José M. Osorio / Chicago Tribune / June 29, 2010)
|
In a split vote, the Illinois Supreme Court today upheld a Cook County judge's ruling that allows disgraced former Chicago police commander Jon Burge to keep receiving his pension despite his 2010 conviction for lying about the torture of suspects.
At issue was whether Attorney General Lisa Madigan had the legal authority to challenge the administrative board’s split decision that allowed Burge keep his approximately $3,000-a-month pension.
Burge, 66, is serving a 4½-year sentence in a federal prison for his 2010 conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice counts. He is scheduled to be released to a halfway house in the fall and then freed on parole next February.
Following his conviction, the board of directors of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago held a hearing to decide if Burge should be stripped of his pension. The board deadlocked 4-4, but Burge was allowed to keep his pension despite the tie vote.
The key issue before the board was if Burge’s conviction was related to his police work. Four current or former Chicago police officers elected to the pension board by their fellow officers supported Burge, while four civilian trustees appointed by then-Mayor Richard Daley voted in opposition.
A week later, Madigan filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court, saying the board violated the law by allowing Burge to keep his pension even though, her office argued, his conviction was directly tied to his police job.
But Judge Rita Novak dismissed the lawsuit, saying that Madigan was not a party to the administrative decision and that even if the board’s ruling was erroneous it was not a decision open to legal challenge by an outside party.
An appeals court, however, reversed Novak’s ruling, finding that the judge did have jurisdiction to hear Madigan’s challenge. The appeals court also found, in a 2-1 split, that a majority vote was needed to allow Burge to keep his pension.
Attorneys for both Burge and the pension board appealed that ruling to the state Supreme Court.
During oral arguments in January, attorneys for Burge and the pension board argued that allowing Madigan’s lawsuit to move forward would open up pension board decisions to legal challenges by outside agencies or individuals who didn’t like the outcome.
Pension board decisions are typically challenged only through an administrative review process by the person applying for benefits or the government body paying for them.
“That the Burge case resulted in an unpopular result is clear. The Attorney General doesn’t like it, the newspapers don’t like it, the public doesn’t like it, four members of the board didn’t like it,” David Kugler, an attorney representing the pension board, said at oral arguments. “But being an unpopular decision doesn’t mean that the board’s action was wrong.”
Richard Huszagh, an assistant attorney general, dismissed the arguments about Madigan’s lawsuit opening the floodgates to legal challeges as an unfounded “parade of horribles.” He said his office was seeking to overturn the pension board’s ruling not because it was unpopular but because it was illegal.
sschmadeke@tribune.com
Twitter: @SteveSchmadeke
At issue was whether Attorney General Lisa Madigan had the legal authority to challenge the administrative board’s split decision that allowed Burge keep his approximately $3,000-a-month pension.
Burge, 66, is serving a 4½-year sentence in a federal prison for his 2010 conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice counts. He is scheduled to be released to a halfway house in the fall and then freed on parole next February.
Following his conviction, the board of directors of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago held a hearing to decide if Burge should be stripped of his pension. The board deadlocked 4-4, but Burge was allowed to keep his pension despite the tie vote.
The key issue before the board was if Burge’s conviction was related to his police work. Four current or former Chicago police officers elected to the pension board by their fellow officers supported Burge, while four civilian trustees appointed by then-Mayor Richard Daley voted in opposition.
A week later, Madigan filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court, saying the board violated the law by allowing Burge to keep his pension even though, her office argued, his conviction was directly tied to his police job.
But Judge Rita Novak dismissed the lawsuit, saying that Madigan was not a party to the administrative decision and that even if the board’s ruling was erroneous it was not a decision open to legal challenge by an outside party.
An appeals court, however, reversed Novak’s ruling, finding that the judge did have jurisdiction to hear Madigan’s challenge. The appeals court also found, in a 2-1 split, that a majority vote was needed to allow Burge to keep his pension.
Attorneys for both Burge and the pension board appealed that ruling to the state Supreme Court.
During oral arguments in January, attorneys for Burge and the pension board argued that allowing Madigan’s lawsuit to move forward would open up pension board decisions to legal challenges by outside agencies or individuals who didn’t like the outcome.
Pension board decisions are typically challenged only through an administrative review process by the person applying for benefits or the government body paying for them.
“That the Burge case resulted in an unpopular result is clear. The Attorney General doesn’t like it, the newspapers don’t like it, the public doesn’t like it, four members of the board didn’t like it,” David Kugler, an attorney representing the pension board, said at oral arguments. “But being an unpopular decision doesn’t mean that the board’s action was wrong.”
Richard Huszagh, an assistant attorney general, dismissed the arguments about Madigan’s lawsuit opening the floodgates to legal challeges as an unfounded “parade of horribles.” He said his office was seeking to overturn the pension board’s ruling not because it was unpopular but because it was illegal.
sschmadeke@tribune.com
Twitter: @SteveSchmadeke
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.