Kangaroo Court or Fair Hearing?

Will Valley View School District offer a fair hearing for the three incumbent board members--Mr. Quigley, Mr. Venegas, and Mr. Gougis whose candidate petitions are being objected to?  According to IL law, the law states that the three board members to sit on the electoral board and render the decision should be Liz Campbell, Jim Curran, and Mike Evans.  Rumor has it that this is not going to be the case.  Liz and Jim are known to NOT be cronies of Roger Claar--so violation and disregard of IL law is being undertaken by Kavanagh and the Claar cronies on the board to make insure that Liz and Jim DON'T sit on the electoral board so that justice does not see the light of day.

Furthermore, the board gets to contract an attorney in an advisory position to hear the claims presented to them.  This attorney does not run, lead, or sway the panel, according to the laws of IL.

Would it surprise anyone to know that it has been alleged that Mr. Kavanaugh has volunteered his services to this electoral board for hearing the objection to Mr. Quigley, Mr. Venegas, and Mr. Gougis candidate petitions? 

Of course he would offer services.  The Republican Party of Will County will have a lot to lose if these three are booted off the ballot.  But how fair does that make his services when there is a conflict?  How fair is it when the board is not stacked with officials set by law?  I believe the proper term here is a Kangaroo Court.  (See below for definition).

We anticipate all the school board candidates, media, and local community watch dog group members to attend this hearing.  Other candidates had to fight hard to get on the ballot by following the laws of elections, getting enough valid signatures, etc.  How dare these three individuals feel they can control the board when they did not even follow the laws that the others were forced to follow?  The other candidates worked hard and deserve their chance, yet these three guys fell short of the legal requirements.

The new candidates deserve to ensure that these three are examined critically under law and a fair court to determine ballot status.

A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial is a colloquial term for a sham legal proceeding or court. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.
A kangaroo court's proceedings deny due process rights in the name of expediency. Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay, the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal.
The term is often applied to courts subjectively judged as such, while others consider the court to be legitimate and legal. A kangaroo court may be a court that has had its integrity compromised; for example, if the judge is not impartial and refuses to be recused.