Another Yingling Associate Files Petition Objection

[The following is a Letter to the Editor]

The following is written with fact and conjecture. The portion that talks about property taxes is factual taken from the Lake County Property Tax website. The conjecture is my assessment of trend I have noticed.

Elona Hamilton
Elona Hamilton

One could say Sam Yingling doesn’t like it when you decide to run for office where he has implicit interest or an office that he himself holds.

In early 2013, Yingling frantically called on known allies to solicit their support to file an objection to three people running for Avon Township Office. Yingling settled on a young activist with learning and social challenges. Township races for the most part are not partisan races as was the case in 2013. However Yingling a Democrat, orchestrated the complaint against three Democrats who had actively supported his 2012 campaign for State Representative. To add insult to injury, Yingling launched the petition challenges on behalf of three Republicans and their campaign whom he also donated $5000.00 (www.elections.il.gov). Yingling’s activist ultimately lost his objection at significant costs. That significant cost is conjecture because there is no money trail. The young activist had no financial means to engage the “high-profile” attorney used in the petition challenge.

On June 30th of this year (www.elections.il.gov), a former employee of Sam Yingling filed a petition objection against Denise Rotheimer who collected 2100 signatures (based on Rotheimer public statements) to seek a ballot position. (Hamilton v Rotheimer). Rotheimer announced her intention to run as an “Independent” for the 62nd District. Yingling (Democrat) is the incumbent and Rod Drobinski of Wauconda is the Republican challenger.

Why Hamilton? She has very little political experience and lost her bid to run for local office in 2013. Hamilton worked for Yingling in his real estate business as a real estate agent. In 2009 after Yingling was elected Township Supervisor, a township that has an office involved in property tax assessments, Ms. Hamilton experienced a significant drop in her property taxes (http://maps.lakecountyil.gov/mapsonline/). Hamilton has the largest home on her block; a 1000 square feet larger than her neighbors. Yet in 2009 & 2010, Hamilton paid the least amount of property taxes in her neighborhood. How much less? Upwards of $1000.00 less!!! One would think $1000.00 variance is significant amount in a middle-class neighborhood.

Why was Hamilton afforded reductions that homeowner with significantly smaller homes were not? Did Yingling uses his position as Township Supervisor to influence the process? Did Yingling play favoritism with his employees at New Century Real Estate? Did Yingling call in “the debt” in his objection to another person running for the office he currently occupies?

Dennis Warren
[Letters to the Editor do not necessarily reflect the opinion of this local news blog and the content is not verified]
You can also read and add comments on our Facebook page.
Did you like the ABOVE article? Share it:

7 Comments

  • by Gene Carey

    A quick review of the State Board of Elections website indicates that Hamilton never pulled Rotheimer’s petition so how would she even have known what was on Rotheimer’s petitions? On the other hand Jon Maxson, who works for Madigan, probably passed it on to Yingling who then did the review. Then possibly, instead of challenging it himself he got someone else (Hamilton) to file the challenge.

  • Denise Rotheimer

    Hamilton’s name does not appear as one of the three names on the State Board of Election’s Web site as a requester to view/copy my petitions. In her objections, Hamilton alleges that pages 1-69 are photocopies and she is seeking to invalidate all the signatures on those pages. To do this she will have to prove the pages are photocopies and since she was not with me at the time I filed the petition and since she did not see the original petition–because she is not listed as a requester how can she allege that those pages are photocopies. The first requester pulled my petition 11 minutes after I filed with the SBOE.

  • Jacob Meister

    Since when does a reputable publication run an unsigned letter to the editor, particularly when the letter contains such clearly defamatory information about someone. As an attorney, I would caution you that running these type of anonymous letters to the editor require you to verify the accuracy of the content. There are at least three items in the “anonymous” letter to the editor that open your publication and the individuals involved to liability for defamation. You can’t hide behind a supposedly anonymous letter.

  • Wendy M. Warden

    Bullying abounds in the 62nd District!

    As I read the definition of defamation ( http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html ) it seems to me there are cases ripe for the filing against Yingling.

    Yingling and his crew would do much better to focus on the needs of the community he was elected to SERVE and quit crying wolf every time he is called out for his and his crews antics that are unbecoming, even to a politician.

  • Denise Rotheimer

    @Meister, you state that you are an attorney so I would like to ask you a question: on what grounds can Hamilton allege that 69 pages of my petition were photocopies given the evidence on the SBOE Web site that she did NOT request to view/copy them? Is her allegation based on hearsay? And if it is–then who told her to say that? More importantly, why? Furthermore, the attempt to invalidate qualified registered voters because they used Wildwood instead of Grayslake is an insult not only to me but more importantly to the district voters! Of which, I can guarantee that those objections will be overruled. The objection filed against me is nothing more than a wild goose chase that will cost taxpayers–not only by depriving the thousands of their right to participate in democracy but in terms of actual tax dollars that I know they would rather see spent on serving their interest. The attempt to deny people their voice on such frivolous claims through this costly process does not fare well for those who are involved in this objection. Taxpayers are tired of being attacked on their rights to participate in democracy and anyone who engaged in this attack to invalidate qualified registered voter’s signatures will be exposed.

  • Wendy M. Warden

    I envision future legislation which would discourage the filing of such frivolous challenges and let’s go so far as to include the filing of frivolous lawsuits as well.

    If the Election Board or Judge rules for the defendant or suggest that the plaintiff withdraws a lawsuit then the plaintiff pays the whole kit and caboodle of costs, theirs, the defendants, court cost, filing fees, and ALL costs that would have been passed on to us the TAXPAYERS.

    This will go a long way toward the filing of (only) serious, winnable challenges and lawsuits and cut out recent rash of bullying via challenge and lawsuits. IMO of course.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *