Ex-Joliet mayor’s lawsuit was a ‘brazen attempt at political revenge,’ city lawyers say

Attorneys for the city of Joliet blasted a former mayor’s conspiracy lawsuit as a “brazen attempt at political revenge” that only sought to hijack the federal courts to harass political foes.

A motion for sanctions against former Mayor Bob O’Dekirk was filed on Thursday by David Matheus, an attorney with Hervas, Condon and Bersani.

The Itasca law firm has defended the city against O’Dekirk’s lawsuit. The former mayor alleged in the suit that he was the victim of a 2020 conspiracy by a “cabal” that plotted to have him charged with a crime.

O’Dekirk filed the lawsuit several months after Joliet Mayor Terry D’Arcy defeated him in landslide election in 2023.

“Federal courts are not venues for personal spite or political backlash. Giving such lawsuits any traction injects poison into the political process and the judicial system delays the resolution of legitimate legal disputes,” said Matheus in a memorandum supporting the motion for sanctions.

The federal claims in O’Dekirk’s case were dismissed Feb. 18 by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings.

But Cummings relinquished his jurisdiction over O’Dekirk’s state claims, which allowed O’Dekirk to take those claims to state court if he chooses to do so.

Matheus’ motion marks the second motion for sanctions against O’Dekirk this week.

The motion seeks for O’Dekirk and his attorneys to pay all fees and costs accumulated by four defendants in the case, including Joliet City Council member Pat Mudron and Joseph Hosey, executive editor of Shaw Media.

The first motion for sanctions was filed by John Schrock, attorney for Jim McFarland, a former Joliet City Council member who was also sued by O’Dekirk.

At the outset of Matheus’ memorandum, he said O’Dekirk lost the election to D’Arcy by a “2-1 margin.”

“Instead of accepting the vox populi or planning an electoral rematch, he filed this vexatious lawsuit, blaming his defeat on alleged schemes by his political opponents,” Matheus said.

Matheus said O’Dekirk’s lawsuit made frivolous legal arguments and sought to “hijack the busy federal courts for an improper purpose, such as to harass.”

Mathues requested Cummings to issue sanctions to punish “such conduct and deter future wrongdoing.”

Matheus noted federal judges can punish litigants by striking their pleadings, referring them for “professional discipline,” and requiring those parties to pay the opponents’ expenses.

Matheus said O’Dekirk’s attorneys with Michael Ettinger and Associates, of Palos Heights, were sent letters that warned them to drop the case or face a motion for sanctions.

“O’Dekirk sneered at all those warnings,” Matheus said.

Matheus said O’Dekirk is an attorney and his attorneys are “veteran litigators.”

“They knew or would have known after even the most basic legal research, that their attempt to weaponize federal civil rights law and federal anti-mafia law against an alleged ‘cabal’ of political enemies was utterly without merit,” Matheus said.

Matheus said O’Dekirk’s lawsuit claimed Hosey, who was the editor of the Herald-News in 2020, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by making negative comments about O’Dekirk.

Matheus said the RICO claim was a “staggering assertion” against Hosey and it went against the purpose of the federal law and the First Amendment upholding freedom of speech.

“O’Dekirk filed a lawsuit alleging that a prominent journalist committed federal crimes and violated RICO by making ‘negative comments’ about an elected official. That kind of baseless intimidation must not be allowed to escape accountability, or else it is likely to be repeated,” Matheus said.

Alexander Michael, one of O’Dekirk’s attorneys, sent a letter in 2023 to Matheus that complained it was “getting vexatious and harassing” responding to the letters warning him of the intended motions for sanctions.

“This case is not about political revenge. It embraces no such thing. Your motion is frivolous and a lie. This case is about your clients answering for trying to convict (O’Dekirk) of a crime he did not commit,” Michael’s letter said.