Atty. General Lisa Madigan Continues Fight to Protect Highway Robbery

View release as a PDF
CHICAGO–Taxpayers United of America (TUA) filed an appeal to Judge Rita M. Novak’s dismissal with prejudice in its suit to repeal the 2012 toll tax increase of 87%.
“Attorney General Lisa Madigan is doing her best to sustain the toll tax increase that is tantamount to highway robbery,” stated Jim Tobin, president of TUA.
“The Illinois toll tax is nothing more than a cash machine that steals money from motorists to fund outrageous salaries for its overstaffed administrative authority. They reach right into your wallet and remove cash every few miles you drive.”
“The law is clear, stated Tobin. “Tollways were supposed to be freeways as soon as the original bonds were paid, and yet Lisa Madigan won’t do her job by upholding the very statutes by which she and the rest of the state are bound.”
“With an attorney general that works for her cronies rather than the people who elected her, there is no oversight, and the Chicago Machine continues to do what it wants, regardless of the laws.”
“TUA will see this suit through the Supreme Court if necessary. Illinoisans are fed up with the attitude of Madigan and her cronies, that we are an endless source of fodder to feed their insatiable hunger for other peoples’ money,” said Tobin.
TUA’s notice of appeal was filed in the Appellate Court on Thursday, August 2, 2012. TUA will make a request for oral arguments.
View Top 50 Toll Authority Salaries

Illegal Electioneering OK in Crook County

View release as a PDF
CHICAGO – Judge Leroy K. Martin, Jr, today granted Riverside Brookfield SD 208’s motion to dismiss the case against them filed by Taxpayers United of America (TUA) and Anthony Peraica for illegal electioneering in the April 5, 2011 election to pass a property tax referendum.
Despite the admission of the school board, for the purposes of this hearing, that they did indeed use approximately $50,000 in taxpayer resources to campaign for the passage of the referenda that would have increased taxes, Judge Martin dismissed the case on the grounds that there were no grounds for the suit.
No, that was not a typo. Yes, using taxpayer resources in such a manner is against the election code and the defendant technically admitted to doing so in papers filed with the court, however, the case was dismissed.
“It seems that here in Crook County, the government does what it wants and gets away with it. Taxpayers’ dollars are openly and freely misused without consequence,” stated Jim Tobin, president of TUA.
“We aren’t going to make this easy for them though,” added Tobin. “We will file an appeal and continue to fight this court sanctioned corruption. The taxpayers of Riverside-Brookfield school district and across the state have a right to legal and responsible handling of their money.”
Click here to see the highest salaries and pensions for Riverside Brookfield District 208.

Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Suit Against Riverside-Brookfield Dist 208

View release as a PDF
CHICAGO–A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at 10:45 am in Room 2008 of the Daley Center. Judge Leroy K. Martin, Jr. will hear arguments on Riverside Brookfield School Dist 208’s motion to dismiss the complaint of illegal electioneering levied against them by Taxpayers United of America (TUA) and former Cook County Commissioner, Anthony Peraica.
“We are confident that Judge Martin will again rule in our favor. This is the district’s second attempt to have this case dismissed, but fortunately, illegal electioneering is still illegal,” stated TUA president, Jim Tobin.
In his March 2 ruling on the first motion to dismiss, the judge expressed his concern regarding the gravity of the alleged electioneering activities of the school board and allowed for an amended complaint to be filed.
The suit challenged the electioneering activities used by Riverside-Brookfield School District 208 school board in its unsuccessful attempt to have the voters approve a property tax increase referendum on April 5, 2011. Attorney Andrew B. Spiegel is representing the plaintiffs in this case.