Ended Before the Questions Could Be Asked

Holy Kisses Special Investigation

August 5, 2026 | Freeport, IL

Presented by Alex Mercer

Lead Investigative Correspondent | F4F NEWS

Investigative Reporting, Editing & Publication

Joshua T. Atkinson

Chairman | Fighting4Freeport

A Case That Quietly Disappeared

When Steve Cassell filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Laura Andrews on May 28, 2026, it appeared destined for a courtroom. Instead, it quietly disappeared.

No jury was selected. No witness ever testified. No evidence was presented in open court. No judge ruled on whether the statements at the center of the lawsuit were true or false.

On July 27, 2026, the parties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice, ending the litigation before the court ever reached the merits of the dispute.

For most lawsuits, that would have been the end.

For Fighting4Freeport, it became the beginning of a much larger investigation.

What "Dismissed With Prejudice" Actually Means

The agreed order dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, a legal phrase that permanently ended that particular civil dispute. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, which would have allowed Cassell to refile the same claims later, a dismissal with prejudice generally prevents the same lawsuit from being brought again against the same defendant.

Just as important is what the dismissal did not accomplish.

The court did not determine who was telling the truth. It did not determine whether Andrews was guilty of defamation, nor did it determine if Andrews’ claims were true. The lawsuit simply ended before the court reached those questions.

That distinction matters because many people mistakenly believe a dismissed case means someone "won" or "lost." In this case, the court never made that determination.

A Case Still Moving Forward

Court records show the litigation was still progressing through the normal stages of civil procedure.

Laura Andrews, through attorney Caitlin Cervenka, entered an appearance and challenged the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss supported by legal memoranda and exhibits. A hearing had been scheduled for the court to consider those arguments.

Before that hearing could take place, Cassell's attorney, Judd Thrumann, filed a motion asking the court for permission to withdraw after advising that he was closing his law practice.

One aspect of the court record stands out. Thrumann sought to withdraw after it had already been made public that he would be closing his law practice following his Republican primary victory and campaign for Stephenson County Resident Circuit Judge.

The timing raises questions. Thrumann sought to withdraw before the scheduled hearing, and days later the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. The court record does not explain why he agreed to take the case or why the parties ultimately chose to end it.

The scheduled hearing never occurred. Instead, the parties jointly agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.

The Part Most People Never See

Television often gives the impression that lawsuits are decided during dramatic courtroom trials.

In reality, much of the most important work happens long before anyone steps into a courtroom through a process known as discovery.

Discovery allows each side to gather evidence before trial. Subject to court rules and judicial oversight, attorneys may request documents, electronic communications, photographs, videos, business records, and other materials they believe are relevant to the claims being litigated. They may also conduct depositions, submit written interrogatories that must be answered under oath, and issue subpoenas for testimony or records when permitted by law.

Not every request is granted. Not every subpoena is enforced.

But discovery exists so both sides can test the evidence before asking a judge or jury to decide the case.

Because the case was dismissed, that process never occurred. No evidence was seen. No testimony was heard. No witnesses were called.

Why Discovery Matters

Discovery is often where the factual picture becomes clearer.

Witnesses may be questioned under oath. Documents can be requested. Electronic communications may be examined. Third parties may receive subpoenas if a court determines the requested information is relevant to the litigation.

No one can say with certainty what additional evidence—if any—would have been produced had this lawsuit continued through discovery.

The court record cannot answer that question because the litigation ended before discovery fully unfolded.

What the Dismissal Changed

By the time the lawsuit ended, the circumstances surrounding Steve Cassell had changed significantly.

What initially appeared to involve a dispute between one pastor and one mother had expanded beyond a single civil lawsuit.

Through its reporting, Fighting4Freeport has confirmed that reports concerning allegations involving the pastor have been made to law enforcement by multiple individuals. Those reports are currently being investigated by the Lena Police Department and the Illinois State Police.

As of the publication of this article, Steve Cassell has not been charged with a criminal offense arising from the matters discussed in this investigation and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

Civil litigation and criminal investigations serve different purposes.

A civil lawsuit allows private parties to resolve legal disputes. A criminal investigation seeks to determine whether criminal laws have been violated.

Although both processes may involve gathering evidence, they operate under different legal standards, different rules, and different constitutional protections.

Where the Investigation Goes From Here

The dismissal of Case No. 2026-LA-14 closed one chapter.

It did not answer the questions that first drew Fighting4Freeport's attention to the case.

Those questions are now being examined through ongoing law enforcement investigations rather than civil litigation.

Whether additional witnesses come forward, whether additional evidence is discovered, or whether criminal charges are ultimately filed will be determined through that investigative process—not through a lawsuit that has already been dismissed.

For Fighting4Freeport, that distinction is important.

The civil lawsuit is over. The court file has been closed. But the questions that first brought Fighting4Freeport to Jo Daviess County have not disappeared. They have simply moved from a civil courtroom to an active criminal investigation.

Once Fighting4Freeport made the lawsuit public, readers began asking questions. Days later, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. Whether those events are connected is something the court record does not answer.

What Fighting4Freeport can answer is what the public record shows. And that record is where this investigation continues.

As this investigation continues, Fighting4Freeport will continue examining the records, organizations, timelines, and evidence that emerged after the lawsuit was filed. Each article will build upon the last as we follow the public record wherever it leads.

Sometimes the most important story isn't the lawsuit that was filed.

It's the questions the lawsuit never answered.