I read the 160-pqge transcript in the following https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2019/01/algonquin-township-road-district-vs-union-150-court-transcript-the-truth/ and wondered what the court order said.
To me, the transcript began to get interesting d end the proceedingsfirst at page 122, when Andrew Gasser attorney Robert Hanlon tells the judge that his order was not specific enough to know what should be done when.
On page 140 Hanlon states that the court hearing is about whether Gasser “was willfully and contumaciously violating your order.”
At this point the Judge admits he’d “have to fashion something in the order, other than…more specific than I fashioned in the September 20th order, obviously.”
That being the case, Hanlon said, “then he couldn’t have willfully violated your order to begin with.”
On page 143 Hanlon argues that if the Judge were to amend his court order, “certainly then he cannot beheld in contempt, and then the order would be ripe for appeal as well, because it would end the proceedings.”
The following exchange made me smile:
Judge: Can IO amend my order sua sponte to that effect?
Hanlon: You’re the judge.
Judge: That doesn’t mean as much as you think.
On page 150, the Judge notes, “There’s nothing punitive bout indirect civil contempt. It’s all coercive. Sp, there’s no penalty, it’s simply a coercive tool of the Court.”
Local 150 attorney Paszata suggests ordering Gasser sequentially to strike members from the eight suggested arbitration panels.
Gasser then testified that his twenty years experience in the Armed Forces taught him how to follow orders.
“Never in this entire process have I willfully or gone out of my way to say I’m not going to comply with something legally. It’s something I fought for fro twenty years.”
The Judge stated, “I don’t find your conduct to be contumacious or disrespectful to the Court.
“So for these reasons, I’m not going to — I’m denying the Petition for Indirect Contempt of Court.”
He then went on to describe what he wanted in the new order.
Below is the article that Illinois Leaks, including the court transcript, can be found below:
Algonquin Township Road District vs. Union 150 – Court Transcript- the truth
Most telling is the fact it does not contain many of the allegations we heard locals spreading on social media.
There are several very interesting points made of which we point out a few below. We urge everyone to read it to get the truth as to what went on in court rather than listening to a bunch of gossip on social media.
- Local 150 filed three motions seeking money, specifically:
1) Motion for Sanctions $159,095.00 (Denied)
2) Motion for Attorney Fees under the Open Meetings Act $161,106.50 (Denied)
3) Motion for Attorney Fees under the Freedom of Information Act (One Count) $52,095 (Awarded $31,850.)
- Local 150 also filed a motion to hold Andrew Gasser in Contempt. (Denied)
- Local 150 asked for costs totaling $1,756 and was awarded costs of $451. (25%)
Out of claims totaling $374,308, the Road District was ordered to pay $32,301, or only 8.6% of the money Local 150 demanded.
Does Local 150 have any order that allows the Union to have an employee restored to employment?
No, contrary to claims from the social media warriors reporting otherwise.
What is the focus of NWH reporting, – Rob Hanlon is late and Andrew Gasser has 21 days to pick an arbitration panel.
What would the NWH headline be if the court awarded all of Local 150’s fee demands?
Hanlon caused $400,000 in more legal fees……
While the entire transcript is very interesting reading, two things jumped out at us.
- Union 150 – “We think that there’s no way that they could have been terminated for just cause”
They think? How interesting that they did not say they “know”.
- The Judge– “I do look at the September 20 order, and it is not as precise or specific as in retrospect it should have been, in my opinion. And so I’ve listened to your testimony under direct and cross-examination as well as your statement. I don’t find your conduct to be contumacious or disrespectful to the Court. So for those reasons, I am not going to — I’m denying the Petition for Indirect Civil Contempt.”
So it was the judge’s order on September 20 that was not precise, rather than Andrew Gasser ignoring the courts as has been claimed.
Go figure, truth prevails once again.