McHenry County Blog

The five-member Grafton Township Board had only Trustees Barbara Murphy, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon in attendance Thursday night.

With Township Supervisor Linda Moore in Texas for her daughter’s college graduation and Rob LaPorta also absent, the meeting was relatively short and peaceful.

Newly-elected Township Supervisor Jim Kearns sat in the back row looking at the Board packet. To his right is Dan Ziller, Sr.

No one raised his voice or went off on a rant. Trustee Gerry McMahon even sat facing the audience.

Unlike the outgoing McHenry County College Board, the old Township Board, chaired Thursday by Barbara Murphy, spent much of the meeting deferring to their successors, referring several times to newly-elected Independent Supervisor Jim Kearns, who was sitting in the back row.

The Road District’s budget, for example, was not passed, even though that was the wish of outgoing Road Commissioner Jack Freund.

“The new Board comes in on the 20th,” Trustee Betty Zirk, the only member of the Board to seek and win re-election.

When it came time for to consider the bills, Zirk had a list of those to exclude. They included

Betty Zirk

• $2,644.68 charged to a BMO Harris credit card (postage, telephone, equipment maintenance, travel expenses, etc.)
• $864.20 for J.A. Jetchmark, Ltd.
• $475 for McHenry County Council of Governments dues
• $295.60 for printing to Total Point of Video, Inc.
• $24,162.50 billed for legal fees by Moore attorney John Nelson
• $39,007.89 billed for legal services from March, 2012, through March, 2013, by Moore attorney Ottosen Britz Kelly Cooper Gilbert & DiNilf

The Trustees’ law firm, Ancel Glink, however, was paid $5,747.48.

“In order to meet the payroll next week, I don’t think we can pay any bills,” Zirk said.

Zirk also mentioned that Township Road Commissioner was owed $7,161.20 to cover health insurance for his wife.

“He could get it cheaper by getting it through his wife’s than through the Township,” she explained.

The motion approving the bills noted that they would be paid when money was available.

Grafton Township Assessor Bill Ottley, Road Commissioner-Elect Tom Pozanaski, a Grafton Township Highway Department employee, Road Commissioner Jack Freund and Township Clerk Harriet Ford.

As outgoing Township Assessor Bill Ottley was leaving after the bills were approved, he was thanked for his service for the last four years. The sparse audience applauded.

Ottley reminded them that he would be around through December, when his term expires.

“And you, too, Jack,” one of the Trustees added.

Zirk then talked about how audit expenses should be allocated. She suggested Public Assistance pay 5% and the Road District 35%.

Freund objected to the number she suggested, saying, “I’ll pay 25% like I’ve always been paying.”

Trustee Gerry McMahon suggest a compromised of 28%. Freund did not agree.

After some discussion, Zirk suggested asking the auditor how much time he spent on the Road District budget and the matter was deferred.

As the meeting was drawing to a close, Murphy said,

“There’s a part of me that is worry for the way things ended up. I regret that.”

Part of the audience at Thursday’s meeting.

A letter from the forensic auditor was read in which he detailed Moore’s refusal to sign the engagement letter and a payment until ordered by Judge

He also said he was unable to obtain original copies of the warrant lists.

Township Clerk Harriot Ford pointed out the documents were on the web site.

“I look forward to things moving on a real positive way,” she said shortly before the meeting adjourned.

Also in the audience was newly-elected Township Assessor Al Zielinski.

A press release from the McHenry County Courts:

Michael Caldwell

Judge Michael Caldwell Gives Lecture in Rome

McHenry County Circuit Judge Michael T. Caldwell recently returned from Rome, Italy where he delivered a lecture to students at Loyola University School of Law in Rome.

Assistant Dean of the law school James Faught invited Judge Caldwell to address his class of the evolution of the adversary system to discuss modern alternatives to trial.

“Whether a law student intends to practice in the courts or not,” Caldwell said, “it is important to know not only the evolution of our system of justice, but to also be knowledgeable about alternative dispute resolution.

“It is more important these days because the overwhelming number of cases is resolved by some form of out-of-court agreement, most recently through the process of mediation.” Judge Caldwell, a trained judicial mediator, is a civil trial court judge and presides over civil jury and bench trials in the 22nd Circuit, Woodstock.

Today Grafton Supervisor Linda Moore’s husband David Moore is in criminal court on October, 2010, battery charges.

Trustee Gerry McMahon points at David Moore while he is taping the meeting.

Concurrently, Moore’s attorney John Nelson in the Separation of Powers case she won is asking for indirect criminal contempt findings against Trustees Rob LaPorta, Betty Zirk, Barb Murphy and Gerry McMahon.

Up to six months behind bars or a fine is requested, the paperwork says.

Here’s the part of Judge Michael Caldwell’s court order which Moore contends that the Trustees violated:

The issue is about the use of a Township credit card that was in existence prior to Moore’s taking office.

The Township Trustees voted not to pay bills incurred through use of the credit card and to cancel the card.

Also bought up was the Trustees’ voting for Moore to return a sound system bought for use at the Annual Town Meeting and at bi-monthly bingo games.

Read the text comparing Moore’s actions to the $53 million embezzlement in Dixon, Illinois:

“Deliberately and willfully violating the terms of this Court’s injunction” are the “red meat” words on the page.

"Retaining Client" is the way this contract (identified as a "draft" by Forensicon President Lee Neubecker) characterizes Grafton Township law firm Ancel Glink. Click to enlarge any image.

Left over from the Balance of Powers suit filed by Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore was whether the billwould be paid from the company hired by the Township Trustees to figure out what had happened to the township computer ruled to be under the control of Moore.

Today Judge Michael Caldwell ruled that it would be.

Grafton Township Road Commissioner Jack Freund sits next to his attorney Patrick Coen at the 2011 Annual Meeting of Grafton Township.

Everybody’s got lawyers in Grafton Township.

Supervisor Linda Moore has John Nelson.

The Trustees have an Ancel Glink Partner Thomas Dicianni, at least for their case involving Moore.

Assessor Bill Ottley has Mike Poper.

Road Commissioner Jack Freund has Patrick Coen.

If one looked at expenditures to determine what the purpose of Grafton Township is, one might be excused for thinking it was to enrich attorneys.

Having heard more evidence than he undoubtedly wanted to, for the most part Judge Michael Caldwell has ruled on Moore’s side of the case.

Now the Assessor’s and the Road Commissioner’s attorneys are seeking changes of venue.

Neither want Judge Caldwell to hear their cases.

The Road Commissioner’s attorney will be in court Tuesday, the Assessor’s lawyer will be there Friday.

Linda Moore

The litigation concerning who has what power in Grafton Township has been long and expensive, but also interesting.  I’ve discussed how it involves the pitting of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of local government with Linda Moore’s attorney John Nelson and an attorney at Ancel, Glink, suggesting the case would be wonderful for law school students.  The one at Ancel, Glink said he would talk to a professor at Northwestern University.

The first case was won by Moore.

Judge Michael Caldwell ruled that she had executive powers much as do village board presidents.  (Both, you will note have a vote on their legislative bodies.)

Ancel, Glink, dismissal by Moore was ratified and Township Administrator Pam Fender, installed by the Trustees to take over pretty much ever duty the Supervisor had had under the man she beat in the GOP primary, John Rossi, performed, except the administration of General Assistance (a very limited welfare program) and keeping the books.

The second time around, Caldwell also ruled for Moore, saying that her choice for Township Attorney, Nelson, would be installed even though he had been rejected by the four Township Trustees.

The Trustees attorney, Thomas DiCianni, seemed visible stuck (read the bottom of the transcript) by Caldwell decision.  After regaining his composure, he asked to appeal and, upon consideration, Caldwell granted him that request.

Trustees Rob LaPorta, Barb Murphy, Berry Zirk and Gerry McMahon won that effort in the 2nd Appellate Court.

Now, Moore has announced that she will not appeal the ruling that Trustees must approve her nomination for Township Attorney.

Last night two Trustees, LaPorta and Murphy, joined more in appointing Michael Torchalski as “Special Counsel” to handle legal affairs in the sale of the Haligus Road property.  That parcel was purchased from the Village of Lake in the Hills for a new township hall.  That decision by the Township Board headed by John Rossi.  Moore used the issue to defeat Rossi in the first GOP primary election in Grafton Township.  (Previous township officials were elected on ad hoc party names.)

Here is the press release from Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore:

Grafton Township Supervisor Declines Appeal to the State Supreme Court

Linda Moore, Supervisor of Grafton Township announced today she did not authorize an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court as to whether it was legal for the trial court to order confirmation of her Attorney, John M. Nelson, as Grafton Township Attorney.

The Second District Court of Appeals reversed the order of the trial court in its decision on August 2011.

“The case involves complicated issues of enforcement of a court’s injunction versus arguments of separation of powers. While my attorney was anxious to have the Illinois Supreme Court decide these important issues, unfortunately, the cost to township taxpayers of such an appeal would vastly outweigh the benefits to Grafton Township and it’s taxpayers, “

Ms. Moore stated.

“The trustees’ attorneys, Ancel Glink have charged a total of $57,379 for just their appeal to the Second District. This is in addition to Attorney Nelson’s charges of $ $11,707.

“I can only imagine how many more tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to make law on this issue,”

stated Moore.

In addition, there is no guarantee the parties could obtain an expedited hearing for a quick decision.

“The Illinois Supreme Court is very deliberate because they set the rule of law in the state, “Ms. Moore said.

“We need a township attorney now, not months from now.”

Ms. Moore pledged she would continue to nominate qualified attorneys to assist Grafton Township in their legal matters. She continued by saying,

“Hopefully the trustees will come to their senses and confirm this appointment so we can move beyond the self-defeating actions that have driven this board.”

Grafton Trustees Ask for Additional Delay to Appeal Judge Caldwell’s Order to Appoint John Nelson Township Attorney

Michael Caldwell

Hi ho. Hi ho. It’s off to court we go.

Again. For Grafton Township.

May 4th Grafton Township Trustees were ordered by Judge Michael Caldwell to vote to approve Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s attorney in her separation of powers case as Township Attorney.

Needless to say, the Trustees do not want the guy who stripped them of all the power that Ancel Glink Partner Keri-Lyn Krafthefer cooked up for them.

The power that Judge Caldwell ruled was improper.

The Trustees’ attorney, Ancel Glink Partner Thomas DiCianni immediately asked for a stay (delay) of the order so the Trustees could file their own separation of powers appeal to the 2nd Appellate Court in Elgin.

Judge Caldwell granted a thirty-day delay so an appeal could be filed.

It was.

Now the Trustees are coming to Judge Caldwell’s courtroom again June 8th to ask for a delay in his order concerning the appointment of John Nelson until the appeal is over.

The document is dated June 6th.

“Do we have to lose every time?” asked Donna McMahon of the Grafton Township Trustees’ counsel Thomas DiCianni, as those in the courtroom awaiting the arrival of Supervisor Linda Moore’s Rockford attorney John Nelson.

“You’ve won more than you’ve lost,” DiCianni replied to Township Trustee Gerry McMahon’s wife.

“If you win, you get something,” she continued. “If we’ve won, how come things keep getting worse?”

After the April meeting, Grafton Township Trustees Barb Murphy, Rob LaPorta and Betty Zirk confer, while Gerry McMahon reads.

Hearing Judge Michael Caldwell order the Trustees to approve Moore’s personal attorney as Grafton Township Attorney at the Board’s next meeting may have reinforced McMahon’s opinion regarding how the long-running and costly case is going.

Nelson argued he should be appointed by the Judge because “I don’t believe these parties will ever come to an agreement on a township attorney.”

DiCianni argued that this part of the case was about separation of powers, contending the Township Trustees were equivalent to the United States Congress, which has to confirm the appointment of the President’s cabinet secretaries.

The Trustees’ attorney did not question Nelson’s competence, but said the township attorney “should be providing opinions everyone would have confidence in,” that Nelson could not be that person because he viewed the situation from “the eyes of an advocate rather than a dispassionate advisor of the entire Board.”

“When somebody’s an advocate for one party or another…it takes a tremendous amount of effort to be objective.”

Former Grafton Township Attorney Joe Gottemoller, who just happened to be in the courtroom on another case, listened intently to the arguments. (Read his advice of two years ago, here.)

In his rejoinder, Nelson said,

“I think its a fair argument that the Grafton Township Board is a far cry from the United States Congress. The Supervisor is on the Board.”

He argued that Judge Caldwell did have “the authority to resolve disputes of this matter” concerning the confirmation statute.

Then Nelson pointed out that DiCianni’s firm Ancel Glink was in the same situation when Keri-Lyn Krafthefer was Grafton Township Attorney.  Caldwell dismissed her as Township Attorney.

In short, if Ancel Glink could fulfill both roles, so could Nelson.

Nelson argued that the Supervisor must have confidence in the Township Attorney and that not having a Township Attorney had “really hamstrung the township.”

Judge Caldwell’s reaction was to say that he was “sympathetic with the separation of powers” argument, but thought the analogy was “overly broad because we’re dealing here with township government, not the United States government.”

He said he was “sensitive to the argument that courts should not (intervene, but) I didn’t run for Circuit Judge for the purpose of being a Township Supervisor or Township Trustee.

“However, I do have the power to enjoin what I believe is a continuing (dispute).

“I believe the failure of the Trustees (to approve Nelson’s appointment, that it was) rejected as a pretext for continuing this dispute. I order them to approve (the appointment).”

The judge explained that when he was Woodstock City Attorney he had a reputation for telling the councilmen “things they didn’t want to hear.”

He indicated that he thought Nelson could do the same.

“I want the trustees mentioned by name in any order so (they can be) held in contempt (if they don’t follow my instructions).”

“I ask for a stay pending an appeal,” the Trustees’ attorney replied.

“It’s not right,” Caldwell said, but, after a bit of reflection, said, “I will stay the order for thirty days.”

After DiCianni drafted an order in the hall and showed it to Nelson, the two appeared before Judge Caldwell again.

Nelson pointed out that, as drafted the court order was a “negative injunction.”

“They are ordered to approve (Nelson as Township Attorney),” the Judge said.

Then, in a moment of levity, he observed,

“And the beat goes on.”

That broke me up, after which I apologized.

In the hall Nelson’s reaction like this:

“Obviously, we agree with Judge Caldwell’s decision. As we argued to the Court, Attorney Nelson’s representation of the Town of Grafton is no different than opposing counsel’s representation of Grafton Township during the pendency of the case.

“While the Trustees have every right to appeal the decision of Judge Caldwell, the appeal will prove very expensive to the taxpayers of Grafton Township.”

The order was stayed until after the appeal is completed.
I asked Trustees Betty Zirk and Barb Murphy what progress there was concerning selecting an auditor.

“We’re working on the audit,” Murphy replied. Zirk indicated it would be discussed at the Thursday, May 14th Board meeting.

Dismissed was a motion that would have prohibited the Ancel Glink law firm from representing Grafton Township, an expansion from banning Krafthefer after another attorney offered apparently free advice to the Trustees about the rejection of citizen-petitioned subjects for the Annual Town Meeting.

Also apparently decided was that Moore’s pre-litigation attorney Richard Cowan will be paid $3,400 at the next Board meeting. Cowan originally billed $5,060.

At the last meeting of the Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore asked her adversaries on the Township Board to approve the man whose arguments unseated their choice for Township Attorney, Keri Lyn Krafthefer, in Judge Michael Caldwell’s court.

Attorney John Nelson can been seen sitting in the middle of the front row in this photo of the last Grafton Township meeting.

To no one’s surprise the services of Attorney Nelson were summarily rejected on a 4-1 vote.

“Conflict” was the word used to explain the rejection. Moore was asked to bring three recommendations from among whom the Township Trustees would chose.

At that same meeting unpaid for advice was given by an Ancel Glink attorney that led the Trustees to knock all of the citizen-initiated resolutions off the agenda of Annual Town Meeting.

The provision of that advice led to negative comments from Judge Caldwell (“They’re not going to sneak around behind the Court’s order …”) and a motion to expand the prohibition of legal advice from Ancel Glink beyond Krafthefer.

After the meeting, Nelson brought up the subject in Judge Caldwell’s court and the jurist said,

“The issue is, is there an articulable reason for not approving you.”

A motion filed last Friday may lead to an answer to that question.

Moore contends that Nelson’s approval was “unreasonably withheld.”

“Further, Supervisor Moore believes outside of conflict the Trustees can offer no articulable reason to deny consent and confirmation of Attorney Nelson as Grafton Town Attorney.”

You can read the motion below. Click to enlarge any page.

Linda Moore Attorney John Nelson is seen sitting on the right in the audience of the last Grafton Township meeting. Moore nominated him for Township Attorney, but the four Trustees voted, "No."

If you are not interested in what is happening in Grafton Township, ignore this post. It contains the court transcript for the separation of powers case between Supervisor Linda Moore and the Township Trustees.

Of possible interest is

• the determination of whether the Supervisor or the Trustees gets to select the computer consultant is deferred,
• former Township Administrator Pam Fender gets reimbursed for the money she spent to put together last April’s Annual Town Meeting,
• a decision is made regarding whether Ancel Glink may continue to give advice to the Township Trustees, even if the firm is not paid for it (Island Lake’s situation gets mentioned),
• mention of a rule to show cause,
• whether Moore attorney John Nelson will be appointed Township Attorney even though the Township Board rejected him 4-1,
• discussion of whether attorney Richard Cowen, who advised Moore before she retained Nelson, should be paid

STATE OF ILLINOIS ))
SS:
COUNTY OF MCHENRY )

IN THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LINDA I. MOORE, in her official
capacity as GRAFTON TOWNSHIP
SUPERVISOR,
Plaintiff,

vs.

GRAFTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, BETTY ZIRK, GERALD
MCMAHON, ROB LAPORTA, BARBARA
MURPHY, in their official capacity
and KERI-LYN KRAFTHEFER of ANCEL
GLINK DIAMOND BUSH DICIANNI &
KRAFTHEFER P.C., in her official
capacity as acting Grafton
Township Attorney, and GRAFTON
TOWNSHIP,
Defendants.
))))))))))))))))))))

No. 10 CH 684

ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED Report of
Proceedings had in the above-entitled cause before
The Honorable Michael T. Caldwell, Judge of the Circuit
Court of McHenry County, Illinois, on the 11th day of
March, 2011, in the McHenry County Government Center,
Woodstock, Illinois.

APPEARANCES:
NELSON & ASSOCIATES, by:
MR. JOHN M. NELSON,
on behalf of the Plaintiff,
ANCEL GLINK DIAMOND BUSH DICIANNI &
KRAFTHEFER, PC by:
MR. THOMAS G. DICIANNI
on behalf of the Defendants.

THE COURT: Linda Moore versus Grafton Township.
MR. NELSON: Good morning, Judge. This comes before the Court on status for entry on an order. I have a typed order, but I need to go over it with Mr. DiCianni.
THE COURT: Okay. We’ll pass it for now.
MR. NELSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: You’re welcome.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter
was passed and later recalled.)
THE COURT: Linda Moore versus Grafton Township.
MR. DICIANNI: Good morning, your Honor, Thomas DiCianni
for the defendants.
MR. NELSON: Attorney John Nelson for Linda Moore, your Honor, plaintiff.
MR. DICIANNI: Mr. Nelson has tendered me a draft of a — of an order based on the transcript and we’re for the most part in agreement on all the points. The only — the only issue that I raised and we’re asking to present it to the Court is we had moved — we had included in the motion — we had included in the motion an issue about who should be the township’s computer consultant. It really wasn’t addressed in the evidence at all and the Court — and the ruling didn’t address it and, frankly, I don’t feel that any — we’re in a position — the Court’s in a position to have ruled on it or we’re in a position to argue about it. I would just ask the Court to treat that part of the motion as withdrawn, seeing as though there’s nothing really in the record to address it and there’s nothing in the Court’s ruling about it.
THE COURT: I was just handed the transcript and, quite frankly, I think you’re right. I don’t have any recollection of the computer issue being resolved. The only thing I think about it is that I had some questions about how the computer expert retained by the trustees was in fact retained –
MR. DICIANNI: Right.
THE COURT: — in terms of allowing their original billing, but –
MR. DICIANNI: That had to do with the bill.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. DICIANNI: Right.
THE COURT: But in terms of designating –
MR. DICIANNI: Right, right. That sort of got lost in the other issues that became more contentious.
THE COURT: That’s something I guess they’ll have to iron out between themselves.
MR. DICIANNI: Yeah, well, (indiscernible) — other
than that –
THE COURT: Subject to –
MR. NELSON: Judge, there –
THE COURT: — further trips back here.
MR. NELSON: Well, Judge, the — the only question I had is, and I put — I put in my draft order the payment of a reimbursement of Pam Fender because part of their request was the payment of $312 and some cents reimbursing her for money she spent on supplies for the annual meeting, and you had — you didn’t address that particular bill, at least that I saw in the record, but overall you seemed to rule in favor of paying expenses of the annual meeting, –
THE COURT: Right.
MR. NELSON: — not paying the mailing and whatever, so I put that in there –
THE COURT: That’s fine.
MR. NELSON: All right.
MR. DICIANNI: A couple other issues. Mr. Nelson sent out a motion regarding a legal bill for Richard Cowen which I got in my office on Thursday and was out of my office, out of town actually, until Monday and I haven’t had a chance to respond to it. I don’t really know — well, I just haven’t had a chance to respond to it.
THE COURT: I’m in a position here based upon what’s been happening in front of me where I cannot make an award of attorneys’ fees no matter who has done what for whom because there is no statute that authorizes it and there is no contract that authorizes it and there is no ordinance or resolution by the township that authorizes it, but I have indicated in my ruling that each of you is entitled to be paid for your representation of the parties to this case.
MR. DICIANNI: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So the procedure that should be followed in my judgment is that the bills should be submitted to the trustees for approval and payment, and then if it’s not, you can bring the matter back here.
MR. NELSON: It has not been — it has been submitted, Judge, and it has not been paid.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. NELSON: It’s been denied.
MR. DICIANNI: It doesn’t fall neatly into either of those categories, so I would just like 14 days to explore it –
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DICIANNI: — and respond to the motion if that’s even necessary.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DICIANNI: Are you presenting this motion –- this other motion today?
MR. NELSON: Judge, I have prepared a motion for expansion of the preliminary injunctive order. My client was provided with a memorandum that I’ve attached, prepared by an attorney in Bloomington but a member of Mr. DiCianni’s office, and the Court had shrunk the injunction to Keri-Lyn Krafthefer solely. There is no language that, as many injunctive orders have, of agents, assigns, partners, employees, that kind of thing.

But we’re asking to expand it so that this kind of thing would be prohibited. The memorandum deals with current town business.
MR. DICIANNI: I didn’t know about this when it happened, but I would like time to respond. I think it’s a bigger issue than just this one — whether it should be expanded because I don’t think the Court can say or did say that the township trustees couldn’t seek legal advice from an attorney. What you said is we can’t represent the township and we can’t of course be paid for representing — for giving legal advice to the trustees.
THE COURT: They’re not going to sneak around behind the Court’s order and effectively take legal advice for routine township business from an attorney of their selection and bypass the appointed township attorney. I’m not going to allow that to happen because that simply — that simply defies the Court’s order.
MR. DICIANNI: Well, I can see — yes, that’s true, but that’s not what –
THE COURT: In this dispute I don’t have a problem, but we’re getting memoranda from a lawyer who has not been appointed as the township attorney by the township supervisor –
MR. DICIANNI: That’s — we have this going on in Island Lake right now where the trustees –
THE COURT: Well, that’s a different –
MR. DICIANNI: — have gone out and hired a different law firm.
THE COURT: — that’s a different proper.
MR. DICIANNI: I know, I know.
THE COURT: But if that’s the situation, then a rule to show cause should –
MR. DICIANNI: It’s an interesting issue. I – I — if this is going — this is going to be — it won’t happen again because we’ll be more careful about –- and, again, I didn’t know about this.
THE COURT: I’ll give you 14 days to answer
Mr. Nelson’s petition.
MR. DICIANNI: All right. Thank you.
MR. NELSON: Judge, do you want me to file this in the clerk’s office then or –
THE COURT: You can file with my clerk here.
MR. NELSON: Judge, in addition, I would be filing probably a motion — Miss Moore did attempt to appoint me as town attorney. The — not unsurprisingly that was defeated four to one. The trustees in fairness cited a conflict. If the Court has a strong feeling on –- you know, on this — but I think we have to get through that and then see where they’re going to go from there. So I’ll be filing –
THE COURT: (Indiscernible) hearing on that. The issue is, is there an articulable reason for not approving you.
MR. NELSON: Yes, sir, I understand.
THE COURT: Other than the fact that you represent
Ms. Moore.
MR. NELSON: Yes, sir.
MR. DICIANNI: Well, if that’s a motion that’s going to be presented, –
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DICIANNI: — I guess we’ll deal with it when it’s presented.
THE COURT: When you going to file it?
MR. NELSON: Judge, I can file that within the next couple of days really or — well, by Tuesday.
THE COURT: I’ll give you 14 days to answer that.And we have at least three petitions then?
MR. DICIANNI: Yeah, that’s right.
THE COURT: And we’ll start the time to answer all of the petitions in this case on the 15th and we’ll give you until the 29th, Mr. DiCianni.
MR. DICIANNI: That’s fine.
THE COURT: And seven days thereafter to reply, Mr. Nelson.
MR. NELSON: Actually, you know, I’m going on vacation the 25th. It’s my — spring break for my son. Can I — can we get –
THE COURT: 21?
MR. NELSON: Yeah, 21.
THE COURT: That’s fine. Time to reply then is extended to April 11th. We’ll hear it on April 26th at 9:30.
MR. DICIANNI: All right. I have seven days to respond to his reply?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. DICIANNI: Did you say April 26th?
THE COURT: Six.
MR. NELSON: April 26.
MR. DICIANNI: 26th.
MR. NELSON: At what time, Judge? I’m sorry.
THE COURT: 9:30.
MR. DICIANNI: One final point, Lee Neubecker from Forensicon is in court here today. I think he might have thought that there was going to be some kind of a hearing. Obviously I don’t represent him, but he asked me if I would ask you if he could address the Court this morning.
THE COURT: No.
MR. DICIANNI: Okay.
THE COURT: He may not.
MR. NELSON: Thank you, Judge. What do you want to do about the order?
MR. DICIANNI: Well, just strike that one line, add that and we’re done.
MR. NELSON: Okay. We’ll hand it up.
Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: All right.