CRIME A judge asked a mother if she got the coronavirus vaccine. She said no, and he revoked custody of her son.

danielboon

TB Fanatic
A judge asked a mother if she got the coronavirus vaccine. She said no, and he revoked custody of her son.

When Rebecca Firlit joined a virtual court hearing with her ex-husband earlier this month, the Chicago mother expected the proceedings to focus on child support. “One of the first things he asked me … was whether or not I was vaccinated,” Firlit, 39, told the Chicago Sun-Times.
1630357223213.png
She was not, she said, explaining that she has had “adverse reactions to vaccines in the past” and that a doctor advised her against getting inoculated against the coronavirus.

“It poses a risk,” she added.

Cook County Judge James Shapiro then made what the parents’ attorneys called an unprecedented decision: He said the mother could not see her 11-year-old son until she got a coronavirus vaccine.

The child’s father is vaccinated, the Sun-Times reported.

Firlit filed a petition to appeal the judge’s decision, her attorney Annette Fernholz told The Washington Post. In an interview with WFLD, Fernholz said the ruling was an overreach.

“The father did not even bring this issue before the court,” Fernholz said. “So it’s the judge on his own and making this decision that you can’t see your child until you’re vaccinated.”







Judges in other states have granted lesser sentences to defendants who opt to get vaccines, or mandated the vaccine as a condition of release from prison for some inmates. A judge in the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge offered some defendants the option of getting vaccinated instead of completing community service hours.

Two judges in Ohio have also ordered that some people receive the vaccine as a condition of their probation. Similarly, two Georgia judges are reducing sentences for some offenders who get a vaccine. In New York, judges in the Bronx and Manhattan have ordered defendants to get a vaccine as part of their rehabilitation and as a condition for seeking bail, respectively.

But the judge’s ruling in Chicago appears to be the first of its kind. Firlit and her ex-husband, Matthew Duiven, have been divorced for seven years, according to WFLD. Court documents show they have had shared custody of their 11-year-old son since June 2014.

Neither Firlit nor Duiven immediately responded to The Washington Post’s request for comment late Sunday.

The hearing on Aug. 10 had nothing to do with revising the custody agreement, Firlit’s lawyer said, so no one was expecting the judge to ask the boy’s mother if she was vaccinated. Firlit said she was befuddled by the judge’s question.

“I was confused because it was just supposed to be about expenses and child support,” she told the Sun-Times. “I asked him what it had to do with the hearing, and he said, ‘I am the judge, and I make the decisions for your case.’ ”

The judge then revoked her custody of her son until she was fully inoculated. Firlit did not indicate if she would get vaccinated, but she said she is trying to appeal the decision because she believes the judge overstepped his authority. She added that taking a son away from his mother is “wrong.”

“I think that it’s dividing families,” Firlit told WFLD. “And I think it’s not in my son’s best interest to be away from his mother.”

The father’s attorney, Jeffery M. Leving, who did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment late Sunday, said he was not expecting the judge to ask about vaccinations or change the custody arrangement. But he said he supported the judge’s decision.

“There are children who have died because of covid,” Leving said. “I think every child should be safe. And I agree that the mother should be vaccinated.”

A Calif. elementary school teacher took off her mask for a read-aloud. Within days, half her class was positive for delta.
Over the past few months, the number of children contracting the highly contagious delta variant has increased exponentially, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The American Academy of Family Physicians has also warned that there is an increasing risk of unvaccinated children sustaining “severe and long-lasting impacts” on their health.

Firlit said she is struggling with the separation from her son, whom she’s only allowed to communicate with over the phone.

“I talk to him every day,” she told the Sun-Times. “He cries, he misses me.”

 

thompson

Certa Bonum Certamen
aYh3kt3.jpg

James Shapiro


 

Nowski

Let's Go Brandon!
This is just another prime example, why it is now best not to have any kids.

Divorce, and events such as this one, make it one of the worst decisions,
that anyone can make.

The mother lost. She cannot get the vax due to valid reasons, which will no
longer stand up in court.

Please be safe everyone.

Regards to all.

Nowski
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
The judge has not a real compelling interest for taking her right as a parent away from her. Yes the state must show a compelling interest for taking someones rights and in this case strip a parent of their kid and rights as a parent, so the state failed by not having a full blown court jury trial in order to do this.
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
The mother lost. She cannot get the vax due to valid reasons, which will no
longer stand up in court.

She's the first, there was another mom in another state a week or so ago who had her kids taken from her because she couldn't do the vaccine, and she won't be the last.
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
The judge has not a real compelling interest for taking her right as a parent away from her. Yes the state must show a compelling interest for taking someones rights and in this case strip a parent of their kid and rights as a parent, so the state failed by not having a full blown court jury trial in order to do this.

It's family court, where the judge is judge, jury, and if need be executioner.
 

Griz3752

Retired, practising Curmudgeon
A judge asked a mother if she got the coronavirus vaccine. She said no, and he revoked custody of her son.
So a person of responsibility (Judge Shapiro) rendering decisions relative to a minor child's welfare learns of a situation where the child will be in the company and care of an unvaccinated person in this environment and takes action to hopefully keep the child safe by isolating the child from the potential issue/source

Lets assume the judge did not take this action and the child became grievously ill and, God-forbid, died? Would that judge be culpable for not acting to protect the child?
 

Nowski

Let's Go Brandon!
Eventually, the tyranny of the COVID-19 jabs, it going to affect every family
in the royally screwed up ZUSA, that has children under 18 years of age.

They will come to the doors, demand a COVID-19 vax passport be shown,
and if not, they will seize the kids.

Its coming, and only a brutal civil war, is going to stop COVID-19,
and its associated poison COVID-19 jabs.

Fight them peoples, fight them with every fiber of your being,
if they try and force COVID-19 jabs.

Please be safe everyone.

Regards to all.

Nowski
 

mzkitty

I give up.
So a person of responsibility (Judge Shapiro) rendering decisions relative to a minor child's welfare learns of a situation where the child will be in the company and care of an unvaccinated person in this environment and takes action to hopefully keep the child safe by isolating the child from the potential issue/source

Lets assume the judge did not take this action and the child became grievously ill and, God-forbid, died? Would that judge be culpable for not acting to protect the child?

She was not, she said, explaining that she has had “adverse reactions to vaccines in the past” and that a doctor advised her against getting inoculated against the coronavirus.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
So a person of responsibility (Judge Shapiro) rendering decisions relative to a minor child's welfare learns of a situation where the child will be in the company and care of an unvaccinated person in this environment and takes action to hopefully keep the child safe by isolating the child from the potential issue/source

Lets assume the judge did not take this action and the child became grievously ill and, God-forbid, died? Would that judge be culpable for not acting to protect the child?
I’m SO glad you’re not in a position of power over others. You’re far too ignorant for that responsibility.
 

Griz3752

Retired, practising Curmudgeon
She was not, she said, explaining that she has had “adverse reactions to vaccines in the past” and that a doctor advised her against getting inoculated against the coronavirus.
I got that part about her prior adverse reactions but the question of culpability for the judge still stands. And in my mind, the judge's actions come down more to protecting his rosy pink ass in that scenario than being all that concerned about the child. Or either parent, if it comes to that; the judge's role in this is to render decisions and I'll bet, he's more concerned about his position, income & pension than any of the involved or their outcomes from all this.

I might be wrong but I don't think so; Shapiro is looking out for Shapiro. The rest is coincidental.
 

Griz3752

Retired, practising Curmudgeon
I got that part about her prior adverse reactions but the question of culpability for the judge still stands. And in my mind, the judge's actions come down more to protecting his rosy pink ass in that scenario than being all that concerned about the child. Or either parent, if it comes to that; the judge's role in this is to render decisions and I'll bet, he's more concerned about his position, income & pension than any of the involved or their outcomes from all this.

I might be wrong but I don't think so; Shapiro is looking out for Shapiro. The rest is coincidental.
you're right to be sad about that Miz Kitty
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
"Your Honor---are you telling me I have to make a choice between disregarding my DOCTOR'S ORDERS regarding my health or losing my CHILD?"

Wish she'd had a chance to put it that way--because that is what this is.
 

ChickenLittle

Contributing Member
Lets assume the judge did not take this action and the child became grievously ill and, God-forbid, died? Would that judge be culpable for not acting to protect the child?

Lets assume the mother takes the "vaccine" so she can be with her child and the mother dies due to complications from it. Would that judge be culpable for not acting in the best interest of the child if he causes the mother's death?

Should the judge be charged with practicing medicine without a license?
 

Raggedyman

Res ipsa loquitur
"Your Honor---are you telling me I have to make a choice between disregarding my DOCTOR'S ORDERS regarding my health or losing my CHILD?"

Wish she'd had a chance to put it that way--because that is what this is.


IT'S arrogance would not have permitted her words to be heard and comprehended by what passes today for a "keen sense of legal insight and moral certitude" (spit)
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Lets assume the mother takes the "vaccine" so she can be with her child and the mother dies due to complications from it. Would that judge be culpable for not acting in the best interest of the child if he causes the mother's death?

Should the judge be charged with practicing medicine without a license?
Don’t know, but Griz would certainly approve. Her death would be “for the children.”
 

rob0126

Veteran Member
Eventually, the tyranny of the COVID-19 jabs, it going to affect every family
in the royally screwed up ZUSA, that has children under 18 years of age.

They will come to the doors, demand a COVID-19 vax passport be shown,
and if not, they will seize the kids.

Its coming, and only a brutal civil war, is going to stop COVID-19,
and its associated poison COVID-19 jabs.

Fight them peoples, fight them with every fiber of your being,
if they try and force COVID-19 jabs.

Please be safe everyone.

Regards to all.

Nowski

People better find out where their local sheriff stands on these issues asap.

And, will the sheriff back you up when .gov or the local pd comes for you?

Otherwise, anarchy is coming.
 

Raggedyman

Res ipsa loquitur
People better find out where their local sheriff stands on these issues asap.

And, will the sheriff back you up when .gov or the local pd comes for you?

Otherwise, anarchy is coming.

there will only be so many sheriffs and LEOs coming for peoples kids. they tend to STOP that kind of shit pretty quickly when people start shooting them on the front lawn over it. the threat of taking peoples children over STUPID SHIT is viewed just a wee bit differently by J6P than Jose and Tyrone popping a cap in a cop from the front window of the local crack house as they pull up to serve a warrant
GUARANTEED
there will be VERY FEW COPS willing to try to forcibly remove children from their parents homes over the lack of a vaccine - and every last one who IS WILLING to undertake that suicide mission has a very short time left on this side of the sod.
ETA:
I fully believe anarchy is coming anyway - with or without this type of insanity. we're owed it as a function of our APATHY
 
Last edited:

vestige

Deceased
there will only be so many sheriffs and LEOs coming for peoples kids. they tend to STOP that kind of shit pretty quickly when people start shooting them on the front lawn over it. the threat of taking peoples children over STUPID SHIT is viewed just a wee bit differently by J6P than Jose and Tyrone popping a cap in a cop from the front window of the local crack house as they pull up to serve a warrant
GUARANTEED
there will be VERY FEW COPS willing to try to forcibly remove children from their parents homes over the lack of a vaccine - and every last one who IS WILLING to undertake that suicide mission has a very short time left on this side of the sod.
Cops got families too.

Just sayin'
 

WTSR

Veteran Member
Existing Law in Illinois protects this woman. Whether or not she will find a lawyer and court and judge to uphold the law is another thing.


(745 ILCS 70/1) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5301)
Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Health Care Right of Conscience Act.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/2) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5302)
Sec. 2. Findings and policy. The General Assembly finds and declares that people and organizations hold different beliefs about whether certain health care services are morally acceptable. It is the public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right of conscience of all persons who refuse to obtain, receive or accept, or who are engaged in, the delivery of, arrangement for, or payment of health care services and medical care whether acting individually, corporately, or in association with other persons; and to prohibit all forms of discrimination, disqualification, coercion, disability or imposition of liability upon such persons or entities by reason of their refusing to act contrary to their conscience or conscientious convictions in providing, paying for, or refusing to obtain, receive, accept, deliver, pay for, or arrange for the payment of health care services and medical care. It is also the public policy of the State of Illinois to ensure that patients receive timely access to information and medically appropriate care.
(Source: P.A. 99-690, eff. 1-1-17.)

(745 ILCS 70/3) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5303)
Sec. 3. Definitions. As used in this Act, unless the context clearly otherwise requires:
(a) "Health care" means any phase of patient care,

including but not limited to, testing; diagnosis; prognosis; ancillary research; instructions; family planning, counselling, referrals, or any other advice in connection with the use or procurement of contraceptives and sterilization or abortion procedures; medication; surgery or other care or treatment rendered by a physician or physicians, nurses, paraprofessionals or health care facility, intended for the physical, emotional, and mental well-being of persons; or an abortion as defined by the Reproductive Health Act;
(b) "Physician" means any person who is licensed by

the State of Illinois under the Medical Practice Act of 1987;
(c) "Health care personnel" means any nurse, nurses'

aide, medical school student, professional, paraprofessional or any other person who furnishes, or assists in the furnishing of, health care services;
(d) "Health care facility" means any public or

private hospital, clinic, center, medical school, medical training institution, laboratory or diagnostic facility, physician's office, infirmary, dispensary, ambulatory surgical treatment center or other institution or location wherein health care services are provided to any person, including physician organizations and associations, networks, joint ventures, and all other combinations of those organizations;
(e) "Conscience" means a sincerely held set of moral

convictions arising from belief in and relation to God, or which, though not so derived, arises from a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by God among adherents to religious faiths;
(f) "Health care payer" means a health maintenance

organization, insurance company, management services organization, or any other entity that pays for or arranges for the payment of any health care or medical care service, procedure, or product; and
(g) "Undue delay" means unreasonable delay that

causes impairment of the patient's health.
The above definitions include not only the traditional combinations and forms of these persons and organizations but also all new and emerging forms and combinations of these persons and organizations.
(Source: P.A. 101-13, eff. 6-12-19.)

(745 ILCS 70/4) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5304)
Sec. 4. Liability. No physician or health care personnel shall be civilly or criminally liable to any person, estate, public or private entity or public official by reason of his or her refusal to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of health care service which is contrary to the conscience of such physician or health care personnel.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/5) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5305)
Sec. 5. Discrimination. It shall be unlawful for any person, public or private institution, or public official to discriminate against any person in any manner, including but not limited to, licensing, hiring, promotion, transfer, staff appointment, hospital, managed care entity, or any other privileges, because of such person's conscientious refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/6) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5306)
Sec. 6. Duty of physicians and other health care personnel. Nothing in this Act shall relieve a physician from any duty, which may exist under any laws concerning current standards of medical practice or care, to inform his or her patient of the patient's condition, prognosis, legal treatment options, and risks and benefits of treatment options, provided, however, that such physician shall be under no duty to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any form of medical practice or health care service that is contrary to his or her conscience.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care.
(Source: P.A. 99-690, eff. 1-1-17.)

(745 ILCS 70/6.1)
Sec. 6.1. Access to care and information protocols. All health care facilities shall adopt written access to care and information protocols that are designed to ensure that conscience-based objections do not cause impairment of patients' health and that explain how conscience-based objections will be addressed in a timely manner to facilitate patient health care services. The protections of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of this Act only apply if conscience-based refusals occur in accordance with these protocols. These protocols must, at a minimum, address the following:
(1) The health care facility, physician, or health

care personnel shall inform a patient of the patient's condition, prognosis, legal treatment options, and risks and benefits of the treatment options in a timely manner, consistent with current standards of medical practice or care.
(2) When a health care facility, physician, or

health care personnel is unable to permit, perform, or participate in a health care service that is a diagnostic or treatment option requested by a patient because the health care service is contrary to the conscience of the health care facility, physician, or health care personnel, then the patient shall either be provided the requested health care service by others in the facility or be notified that the health care will not be provided and be referred, transferred, or given information in accordance with paragraph (3).
(3) If requested by the patient or the legal

representative of the patient, the health care facility, physician, or health care personnel shall: (i) refer the patient to, or (ii) transfer the patient to, or (iii) provide in writing information to the patient about other health care providers who they reasonably believe may offer the health care service the health care facility, physician, or health personnel refuses to permit, perform, or participate in because of a conscience-based objection.
(4) If requested by the patient or the legal

representative of the patient, the health care facility, physician, or health care personnel shall provide copies of medical records to the patient or to another health care professional or health care facility designated by the patient in accordance with Illinois law, without undue delay.
(Source: P.A. 99-690, eff. 1-1-17.)

(745 ILCS 70/6.2)
Sec. 6.2. Permissible acts related to access to care and information protocols. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent a health care facility from requiring that physicians or health care personnel working in the facility comply with access to care and information protocols that comply with the provisions of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 99-690, eff. 1-1-17.)

(745 ILCS 70/7) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5307)
Sec. 7. Discrimination by employers or institutions. It shall be unlawful for any public or private employer, entity, agency, institution, official or person, including but not limited to, a medical, nursing or other medical training institution, to deny admission because of, to place any reference in its application form concerning, to orally question about, to impose any burdens in terms or conditions of employment on, or to otherwise discriminate against, any applicant, in terms of employment, admission to or participation in any programs for which the applicant is eligible, or to discriminate in relation thereto, in any other manner, on account of the applicant's refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer, assist or participate in any way in any forms of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/8) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5308)
Sec. 8. Denial of aid or benefits. It shall be unlawful for any public official, guardian, agency, institution or entity to deny any form of aid, assistance or benefits, or to condition the reception in any way of any form of aid, assistance or benefits, or in any other manner to coerce, disqualify or discriminate against any person, otherwise entitled to such aid, assistance or benefits, because that person refuses to obtain, receive, accept, perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/9) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5309)
Sec. 9. Liability. No person, association, or corporation, which owns, operates, supervises, or manages a health care facility shall be civilly or criminally liable to any person, estate, or public or private entity by reason of refusal of the health care facility to permit or provide any particular form of health care service which violates the facility's conscience as documented in its ethical guidelines, mission statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations, or other governing documents.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician, health care personnel, or a health care facility from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care.
(Source: P.A. 99-690, eff. 1-1-17.)

(745 ILCS 70/10) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5310)
Sec. 10. Discrimination against facility. It shall be unlawful for any person, public or private institution or public official to discriminate against any person, association or corporation attempting to establish a new health care facility or operating an existing health care facility, in any manner, including but not limited to, denial, deprivation or disqualification in licensing, granting of authorizations, aids, assistance, benefits, medical staff or any other privileges, and granting authorization to expand, improve, or create any health care facility, by reason of the refusal of such person, association or corporation planning, proposing or operating a health care facility, to permit or perform any particular form of health care service which violates the health care facility's conscience as documented in its existing or proposed ethical guidelines, mission statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations, or other governing documents.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5311)
Sec. 11. Denial of aid or benefit to a facility. It shall be unlawful for any public official, agency, institution or entity to deny any form of aid, assistance, grants or benefits; or in any other manner to coerce, disqualify or discriminate against any person, association or corporation attempting to establish a new health care facility or operating an existing health care facility which otherwise would be entitled to the aid, assistance, grant or benefit because the existing or proposed health care facility refuses to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any form of health care services contrary to the health care facility's conscience as documented in its existing or proposed ethical guidelines, mission statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations, or other governing documents.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11.2)
Sec. 11.2. Liability of health care payer. No health care payer and no person, association, or corporation that owns, operates, supervises, or manages a health care payer shall be civilly or criminally liable to any person, estate, or public or private entity by reason of refusal of the health care payer to pay for or arrange for the payment of any particular form of health care services that violate the health care payer's conscience as documented in its ethical guidelines, mission statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations, or other governing documents.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11.3)
Sec. 11.3. Discrimination against health care payer in licensing. It shall be unlawful for any person, public or private institution, or public official to discriminate against any person, association, or corporation (i) attempting to establish a new health care payer or (ii) operating an existing health care payer, in any manner, including but not limited to, denial, deprivation, or disqualification in licensing; granting of authorizations, aids, assistance, benefits, or any other privileges; and granting authorization to expand, improve, or create any health care payer, because the person, association, or corporation planning, proposing, or operating a health care payer refuses to pay for or arrange for the payment of any particular form of health care services that violates the health care payer's conscience as documented in the existing or proposed ethical guidelines, mission statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations or other governing documents.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11.4)
Sec. 11.4. Denial of aid or benefits to health care payer for refusal to participate in certain health care. It shall be unlawful for any public official, agency, institution, or entity to deny any form of aid, assistance, grants, or benefits; or in any other manner to coerce, disqualify, or discriminate against any person, association, or corporation attempting to establish a new health care payer or operating an existing health care payer that otherwise would be entitled to the aid, assistance, grant, or benefit because the existing or proposed health care payer refuses to pay for, arrange for the payment of, or participate in any way in any form of health care services contrary to the health care payer's conscience as documented in its existing or proposed ethical guidelines, mission statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations, or other governing documents.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/12) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5312)
Sec. 12. Actions; damages. Any person, association, corporation, entity or health care facility injured by any public or private person, association, agency, entity or corporation by reason of any action prohibited by this Act may commence a suit therefor, and shall recover threefold the actual damages, including pain and suffering, sustained by such person, association, corporation, entity or health care facility, the costs of the suit and reasonable attorney's fees; but in no case shall recovery be less than $2,500 for each violation in addition to costs of the suit and reasonable attorney's fees. These damage remedies shall be cumulative, and not exclusive of other remedies afforded under any other state or federal law.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)


(745 ILCS 70/13) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5313)
Sec. 13. Liability for refusal to provide certain health care. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as excusing any person, public or private institution, or public official from liability for refusal to permit or provide a particular form of health care service if:
(a) the person, public or private institution or public official has entered into a contract specifically to provide that particular form of health care service; or
(b) the person, public or private institution or public official has accepted federal or state funds for the sole purpose of, and specifically conditioned upon, permitting or providing that particular form of health care service.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/14) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5314)
Sec. 14. Supersedes other Acts. This Act shall supersede all other Acts or parts of Acts to the extent that any Acts or parts of Acts are inconsistent with the terms or operation of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)
 
Last edited:
Top