(1977). In Illinois, the absolute privilege provided by section 587 applies to statements which are “relevant, pertinent, or bear some relation to the subject in controversy.” Defend v. Lascelles, 149 Ill. App. 3d 630, 640 (1986). 1. Validity of Creative Travel/Della Femina Litigation Medow first argues that the litigation privilege provided by section 587 of the Restatement does not apply in this case because the lawsuit brought by Flavin on behalf of Creative Travel was void ah initio pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 282(b) (177 Ill. 2d R. 282(b)), which expressly prohibits a “corporation [from] appearing] as claimant, assignee, subrogee or counterclaimant in a small claims proceeding, unless represented by counsel.” See Berg v. Mid-America Industrial, 293 Ill. App. 3d 731, 737 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Flavin responds that section 2 — 416 of the
holding that proceedings  involving a layperson representing a corporation are null and void ah initio holding that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void ab initio holding that policy was void ah initio as a wagering contract where the investors funded the premium by funneling the money through the trust account holding that a garnishment proceeding could not proceed because the underlying judgment was null and void holding that a procurement contract award in conflict with statute and regulation was void ah initio