Who is the better legal researcher, NWH reporter Ed Komenda or Illinois Leaks?
Read the following article, reprinted with permission of Illinois Leaks, and make your own decision:
Northwest Herald – Facts elude them once again.
Reporter Ed Komenda confers with photographer Gregory Shaver after the July, 2018, meeting of the Algonquin Township Board meeting.[/caption]A recent publication by the Northwest Herald reporter Ed Komenda appears to be not only another anti-attorney Hanlon hit piece, but a clear misrepresentation of the facts, to include flat-out false statements.
- Hanlon and Windmill’s counsel failed to respond to the complaint.
Hanlon was not the counsel for Windmills at the time a complaint was due, which means Hanlon did not fail to respond as claimed by the reporter.
Windmill’s counsel at the time failed to respond to the complaint.
But by all means, don’t take our word for it. Read the Affidavit of the actual client in the case.
Misrepresenting the truth:
- Hanlon did not file anything, “explaining that he was in Minnesota on a Boy Scout canoe trip.”
Correct, Hanlon did not file anything because he was not the attorney on the case at the time said filing was due.
As far as his explaining that he was in Minnesota on a Boy Scout canoe trip, yes, that is where he was when he was contacted to take the case after the prior attorney failed to file anything.
His being on a canoe trip had nothing to do with the case where an attorney failed to file anything.
That snippet was taken from an Appellate file that did not include the context to that specific canoe trip.
His involvement as a Scout Master had nothing to do with any filing in that case.
Some facts that expose Komenda’s false narrative:
- The summons and complaint in the Wisconsin case were issued on April 26, 2011.
- The motion for default was filed on June 23, 2011.
- A default judgment entered on June 23, 2011.
Those three events all took place before Robert Hanlon was involved in the Wisconsin case where Komenda claims he failed to file anything.
- On August 5, 2011, Attorney Hanlon was hired along with a Wisconsin Attorney. Note this is well after the default judgment in the case Komenda claims Hanlon failed to respond to. (That was a Friday when Hanlon was in the Boundry Waters on the Canoe trip with the Boy Scouts.)
- On August 9, 2011, Wisconsin Attorney filed first pleading
- After being hired, he filed a petition with the Wisconsin Supreme court for the ability to proceed “Pro Hac Vice” because he did not have a Wisconsin license and that is why the Wisconsin attorney filed the initial pleadings.
- The Supreme Court granted Hanlon permission to be an attorney in the case on September 3rd, 2011. There is no way he could have done anything in the case until after that date.
You will note that the affidavit attached to the initial filing (post-judgment) involving Hanlon was more than a month after the initial default entered.
Had Komenda, in his nearly eight years to research into this file, looked at the initial filing and actually read the first document filed in the case on behalf of the Defendants, he would have known his story was false.
Adding insult to the erroneous reporting is the fact that after nearly 8 years, had he looked, he would have learned that these two cases had combined judgments entered on a default basis in excess of $7.2M.
After Hanlon appeared on behalf of several defendants, he was able to secure a settlement at $400,000.
Mr. Reschke filed a bankruptcy petition prior to a settlement which Hanlon represented him and the Court discharged all of the indebtedness.
The client had to pay $0.00 vs the $7.2MM on the Default. (See Discharge Order here)
The entire fact pattern on this Wisconsin case is a very far cry from Hanlon dropping the ball.
In essence, the NWH has criticized Hanlon for winning a major victory for the Defendants.
If you go to the Wisconsin Court System website you can verify the dates set forth above.
Of interest, why is a 7.5-year-old case dealing with the fallout of the great recession even news today?
It only appears to be news today because the NWH has an agenda regarding Hanlon.
How Ironic it is that the lack of diligence the NWH focuses upon is reflected in its own lack of diligence in securing basic documents.
How long would it have taken to disprove their narrative?
We did so in just over 24 hrs.
In regards to the Federal case cited and the motion for Sanctions, most telling is what he failed to report and include for the public to read for themselves. Why not post all those records?
- “In 2016, attorney Alejandro Caffarelli, representing a client named Rene Vargas, asked Judge Michael T. Mason, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, for sanctions against the lawyer on the other side: Hanlon.”
- “Attorney Caffarellin lie to the court:” “Judge, I’m not going to file a sanctions motion.” (See transcript page 16 line 23)
- “As such, a review of the federal docket shows that Attorney Cafferalli is no stranger to filing motions for sanctions” (See response to Motion for Sanctions)
So rather than telling the world about a lawyer that lied to the court, he makes the story about alleged late filings?
What a review of all these records will tell you, to include the Response to the Motion for Sanctions, is the real story.
Why in today’s day and age the records were not linked to is beyond me.
All of them with the exception of a claimed 10-page legal brief, were readily available in the public domain and considering we put our hands on them in less than 48 hrs, tells us the NWH had little interest in reporting the whole story, but rather snippets that support an anti-Hanlon agenda.
While we recognize there “may” be some other 10-page legal brief that we could not find on Pacer, we have yet to find it and simply ask that the NWH produce the record so the readers can actually read what it says as it is clear from this Hanlon hit piece, facts are not what they presented.
This is not the first time we have exposed the NWH in their bogus agenda-driven reporting.
I think the most comical was when we exposed the false allegations they made about the Algonquin Township Road District Highway Commissioner in this article.
We have been informed that the clients involved in the Wisconsin case are preparing letters to the Editor regarding their misrepresentations of the facts in their case and will seek a retraction and correction.
We are trying to get copies of those letters and will update if and when we get copies.