McHenry County Blog

Somehow I posted the wrong court order from Judge Thomas Meyer in the litigation between Grafton Township Road Commissioner Jack Freund and Supervisor Linda Moore.

I have take that one down and put up the one I thought I was writing about.

An email from Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore about mediation being order between her and Road Commissioner Jack Freund:

“Please find attached to this email, the court order, granting my petition which requests that the Highway Commissioner Jack Freund and I enter mediation to resolve the suit filed by the Highway Commissioner.

“My earlier attempts to enter mediation with an attorney offering to mediate at no charge and without a court order were not accepted by Mr. Freund and his attorneys.”

“The court order reads:

“This cause coming on Defendants Motion to Refer to Mediation, the court being duly advised, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Motion is Granted. The parties are ordered to attend mediation, with mediator C. Ellis, if possible.
2. Defendant granted to 10/25/12 for responsive pleading.
3. Case set for 12/14/12 at 9:00 am for further status.

“Prepared by Hoppa”

Attached was a court order signed by Associate Judge Thomas Meyer:

One could note that the mediator names, Case Ellis, is not the one who volunteered to do it for free, Rob Hanlon.

Robert Bush was in Judge Michael Caldwell’s courtroom today representing the Grafton Township Trustees. None of the Trustees were present.

Supervisor Linda Moore was accompanied by her attorney, John Nelson.

Before the judge came in, there was some exchanging of paperwork, which I misunderstood.

I thought Bush was withdrawing from the case, but, no, it was Nelson who was had agreed to withdraw the petition that was on the docket.

“It makes it easy for me,” Bush observed.

“This case is over except for the appeal, some of which is OK, some of which isn’t”

When informed of the change in plans, which freed up two hours in Judge Caldwell’s schedule, he said, “OK.”

And out the door the attorneys and Moore went.

Moore’s attorney Nelson provided the following commentary:

“They did pay the auditor’s bill and I’m going to consider that an olive branch and see if I can work with attorney Bush to see if we can resolve the issued that have boiled over during this term.

“Supervisor Moore is willing to make one last attempt to resolve matters short of all-out litigation.”

When asked if mediator Rob Hanlon would be assisting, the answer was, “No.”

“I’m going to try to work directly with attorney Bush. He was instrumental in getting the auditor’s bill [paid] for the first year.

“If efforts at reconciliation are unsuccessful, we still have plenty of time to litigate matters enforcing the court order before Judge Caldwell.

“My client would like to see an end to the lawyers’ never ending legal bills in this case.

“We are putting the ball into the Trustees court on that matter.”

As I was leaving volunteer mediator Rob Hanlon was conferring with Nelson to find three dates that could be offered to Township Assessor Bill Ottley’s attorney Mike Poper at one of which a compromise between Ottley and Moore would be sought.

A letter sent by Attorney Robert Hanlon to the Grafton Township Trustees:

August 2, 2012
Grafton Township Offices
Messrs. LaPorta, McMahon, Moore, Murphy, Zirk,
Unit B
10109 Vine Street
Huntley, IL 60142

Via Personal Delivery at Grafton Township Offices

Re: Termination of Prior Offer of Free Mediation

Last month I made an offer to attempt to mediate the issues between the Grafton Township Trustees and the Grafton Township Supervisor.

The offer was made as a result of what I believe to be a complete waste of judicial and taxpayer resourses arising from the disputes in Grafton Township government by individuals with no direct pecuniary stake in the litigation.

When I extended my offer, I truly believed there was legitimate interest on all parties to pursue the avenue of mediation.

Initially, based on what I had heard about these disputes I was concerned about a lack of good faith by the respective parties.

Because of that I had asked Mrs. Moore for a simple concession demonstrating her good faith.

That concession was granted.

I came to the Grafton Township offices[Thursday night] with two letters, one congratulating you all for your willingness to mediate. Of course the other letter is before you.

The personal animus which I perceive still exists and is eroding the very concept of governance by consent in Grafton Township.

As of right now, Mrs. Moore and Mr. Ottley via their counsel are the only ones to have accepted my offer of mediation.

I had been in contact with some of the trustees and in particular Mr. McMahon, Mrs. Zirk and Mrs. Murphy.

Both Mrs. Zirk and Mrs. Murphy expressed an interest in the mediation process.

Approximately two weeks ago I provided dates to Mrs. Zirk so that in the event the trustees were interested in mediation a special meeting could be called.

The dates I provided her were 7/30 and 7/31.

The Trustees did not call a special meeting.

I understand from Mrs. Zirk that she was under the impression that Mrs. Moore was going to schedule a special meeting of the Grafton Township Board.

I also understand that the trustees were not willing to make a decision on my offer to mediate in the absence of their counsel.

Nevertheless, at this time I have no acceptance from the trustees and I doubt very much given Mr. LaPorta’s statement to the press and Mr. McMahon’s statements expressing concerns about success in mediation that such an approval will be forthcoming.

As such, my offer to mediate for free between the Trustees and the Supervisor is now withdrawn.

The offer of mediation accepted by Mrs. Moore and Mr. Ottley will proceed unless terminated for other reasons.

Hopefully that process between Mrs. Moore and Mr. Ottley will result in a positive result for the parties and the people who are paying for the ongoing litigation.

Respectfully,

ROBERT T. HANLON

Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore has called a Special Meeting for tonight to discuss the possibility of mediating some of the legal disputes between her and the four Township Trustees.

The agenda for the 7 PM meeting follows:

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Public Comment
5. Discussion and action regarding mediation of matters of Moore vs. Grafton Township, Ottley vs. Moore, and Freund vs. Moore litigation in McHenry County Courts.
6. Executive Session regarding the following excerpt from the Illinois Open Meetings Act
7. Possible action on settlement agreement to resolve township litigation as determined in closed session.
8. Discussion and action of items as discussed in Executive Session.
9. Adjournment of the meeting.

Attorney Robert Hanlon of Woodstock has agreed to try to mediate differences among the feuding parties.

Woodstock attorney Robert T. Hanlon was in courthouse this past Wednesday to offer his services pro bono to mediate differences between the Township Trustees and the Supervisor.

There were court appearances in

• the Separation of Powers case that Supervisor Moore brought against the Trustees when they tried to usurp her office’s Executive powers (which the Trustees are appealing),
• the case brought by Highway Commissioner Jack Freund to get Moore to pay bills including one for his wife’s health insurance and
• the suit by Assessor Bill Ottley against Moore for her refusal to pay re-modeling bills.

That’s what the story written by the First Electric Newspaper’s Pete Gonigam said.

Apparently Moore has agreed to try that approach, but when I asked the apparent leader of the Trustees, Rob LaPorta, if it were true that mediation had been agreed to by the Trustees, I received the following email:

“This is not true.

“Neither Moore nor Trustees have agreed.

“This event will not occur.”

When I sent LaPorta’s response to Hanlon for his reaction, he sent me the following reply:

“After making the offer to mediate, the Township Trustees’ attorney indicated verbally that she would recommend it to the trustees.

“Additionally, Mrs. Zirk and Mrs. Murphy appeared willing to embrace mediation.

“Attorney Nelson, who represents Mrs. Moore agreed to the mediation.

“To test Mrs. Moore’s good faith, I asked for a small concession on Mrs. Moore’s part.

“That concession was granted. (The subject of the concession is not for public comment.)

“It is my belief that Grafton Township is in a complete and total state of dysfunction as a result of personal animus arising from prior events.

“As indicated in the E-mail below [above here], it appears that the trustees are not willing to mediate.

“Unless and until the trustees agree to a good faith mediation, there is nothing I can or will do.

“If a special meeting of the Township board is called to address the mediation process, I will attend and then and there present to the trustees and supervisor a proposal outlining the mediation process.

“If approved and later I determine that a particular party is not acting in good faith I will immediately end the mediation.

“My time is too valuable to play games.

A retired Catholic Priest named Thomas Vitio has won a suit against Fisher Nut family member Lisa Ann Sanfilippo (formerly Lisa Ann Evon) for her failure to repay a $150,000 loan.

With interest, the amount owned the former cleric of  St. Julian Eymard Catholic Church in Elk Grove Village is over $171,000.

During her divorce proceedings, Sanfillipo acknowledged the debt.

She has even made some payments, court documents say.

The money, according to the defendant’s ex-husband Jerome, was used to fund the operations of JRC Color Corporation.  He also swore he saw her sign the note.

The refusal of Sanfilippo to repay the loan led to the breach of contract case.

May 1st, McHenry County Associate Judge Thomas Meyer signed an order for summary judgment in the case for Farther Viteo.

Robert Hanlon is the attorney for Viteo.  Liz Wakeman and Jennifer Gibson of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle represent Sanfilippo.

Attorney Robert Hanlon, known for taking on powerful interests, has pretty much declared war on the Village of Bull Valley.

The immediate motivation is three of his friends getting speeding tickets on the way to his home, which is located just outside the village limits and his having been given a speeding ticket outside the village limits.

In December of 2010, Bull Valley ticket writing police were featured on the front page of the Chicago Tribune.

My headline was,

Bull Valley Residents Can Cheer, “We’re Number 1!”

Hanlon was offering his legal services to those had tickets in the courtroom of newly-appointed Associate Judge Joel Berg early Friday morning.

And he asked for a bench trial for all of them.

I talked to one of his new clients, a Latino man, who had been ticketed for going two miles over the speed limit.

Another man, Eliso Negron, delivers pizzas in Bull Valley.

He was driving a 1996 Ford Escort, a small car, a bit out of place in the tony town.

Noisy muffler the first time around.

Next “I was pulled over, one week later to the hour. I missed my address so I went to the next stop sign. I made a left hand turn after the stop sign and I drove approximately 20-30 feet and I pulled over and, then, he made a left hand turn and turned on the lights.

“I got a ticket for having my windshield cracked.

“I think I was profiled based on my beater car.

“He told me he was very disappointed in me that I did not junk the car yet. He said he had to give me another ticket. That’s when he gave me a ticket for having a spiderweb crack on my windshield.

“I junked the car shortly after he gave me the second ticket.

“I was driving again about two weeks later, but this time I was driving my father-in-law’s minivan and he was sitting on the side of the road. I drove past him and the vehicle has a slight hole in the muffler, but it was not very loud.

“He pulled me over and asked me for my license. I told him, ‘You already took it. You gave me two tickets earlier.’

“Then he remembered me.

“I handed him my state ID.

“This time he gave me a warning ticket.

“I thought I should have been given a warning the first time.

“All of that happened on a Thursday nights when I was delivering pizzas.”

Negron may think he was targeted because of his old car, but my brother-in-law, the doctor, wasn’t driving a beater when he got a ticket for failing to turn on his left turn signal prior to turning.

Hanlon puts it this way, “Bull Valley is basically ticketing everyone who goes through that town that doesn’t live in that town.

“The village government is paying the Bull Valley cops to write more tickets than any other police department.

“The Bull Valley Police are predators and I want to bring about social change…for no pecuniary gain on my part,” the successful attorney said.

“Jane No” is the lead plaintiff, along with “Jane Doe” and “Jane Roe” in a suit filed in McHenry County Circuit Court Friday by attorney Robert Hanlon.

Each plaintiff seeks at least $150,000 from defendant Dr. Basudeb Saha.

In the suit, Dr. Saha is described as having been “Chairman of the Department of Surgery at Centegra Health Systems McHenry for the period of 2009 -2010 and was Chairman of the Department of Surgery for a period of time commencing in 2011 and ending at a point in time in 2012.”

The suit says the physician was born in 1945 and “graduated from the All Institute of Medical Sciences in New Deli, India in 1969 or thereabouts.”

The events described in the suit allegedly took place at Northern Illinois Medical Center in McHenry, where the women suing Dr. Saha work.

The women dress in “scrubs,” which “generally have a shirt pocket on the left side directly in front of the breast; the scrub shirt has a ‘v’ neck, the scrubs pants are draw string pants,” the suit says. “…changing into them is one of the first things each of the plaintiffs will do to start work on any given day at NIMC.”

What happened to Jane No is outlined first:

“…occurring in late fall or early winter of 2010, Dr. Basudeb Saha, attempted to kiss Jane No between room one and room two on the first floor of NIMC. At that time, Dr. Basudeb Saha, orally stated ‘come here’ or words to that effect and he attempted to kiss Jane No on her lips. Jane No immediately turned her head to the right so Dr. Basudeb Saha, would not kiss her on the lips and Dr. Basudeb Saha, then kissed Jane No’s left cheek…

“Dr. Basudeb Saha, had his hands on Jane No’s arms. As Jane No pulled away from Dr. Basudeb Saha, Jane No observed that Dr. Basudeb Saha, was visibly erect in his genital area by a phallic shaped object protruding buldge in his scrubs…

A consumer rating found on the internet.

“Dr Basudeb Saha attempted on at least 10 separate occasions to either place or remove objects into or from the shirt pocket of Jane No scrubs by either placing his hand along with an object into the scrub shirt pocket or retrieve an item by placing his hand into the scrub shirt pocket while it was worn by Jane No. While Dr. Basudeb Saha either placed items in the scrub shirt pocket or attempted to remove items from the scrub shirt pocket, Dr. Basudeb Saha touched Jane No’s left breast through her clothing.”On one occasion while Dr. Basudeb Saha and Jane No were at the scrub sinks between Room 1 and Room 2, Dr. Basudeb Saha commented: ‘You’re my dream girl’ ‘If I were younger’.

“After Christmas 2010, Dr. Basudeb Saha put his hands into Jane No shirt and felt her breasts.

“On at least two separate occasions, after Christmas 2010, and before December 2011 he reached into Jane No scrubs and felt her breasts, skin on skin contact…

“Upon information and belief (as to the date of occurrence), between the fourth week of September 2011 and the second week of October 2011 or thereabouts Jane No was between room 5 and 6, in the hallway, on her way to the heart room, Dr. Basudeb Saha grabbed Jane No by her right arm and then placed his other hand up and between Jane No’s legs touching Jane No’s genital area through her clothing.

“…during the week of November 7, 2011 or thereabouts. At this time, Dr. Basudeb Saha , approached Jane No while she was standing looking at a board, he attempted to put his hand in Jane No’s shirt pocket and stopped as another employee entered the front desk area…

“At a point in time in 2011, the specific date is unknown, but during sit-down surgerys Dr. Basudeb Saha would grab Jane No’s legs with his legs by pinching his thighs together as Jane No sat across from him during surgery and would press his knee into her genital area or press his genital area upon Jane No’s knee.

“On or about January 16, 2012, Jane No and Jane Roe attended a meeting with David Tomlinson, Mike Easley, Jason Ciarro and others.

“During the January 16, 2012 meeting, it was commented by Mike Easley the following statement: ‘what did you expect us to do?’. Mike Easley also commented with the following: ‘Most places sweep this kind of thing under the rug’ or words to that effect.

“Mr Easley’s comments came after Mr. Easely informed Plaintiffs Jane No and Jane Roe that the Hospital was going to bring Dr. Basudeb Saha back to work at the hospital because according to Mr. Easely, ‘we would hate to see Good Shepard get him’ or words to that effect.

“During the January 16, 2012 meeting, Mr. Easley showed Jane No and Jane Roe two apology letters from Dr. Basudeb Saha. The two apology letters were framed under the concept of an apology for non-specific conduct. The first letter was addressed to the OR Staff and indicated that he was sorry about causing pain in the OR. The second letter was to Dr. Lawrence, which started with a thank you for helping him with a matter in the OR.

“Upon information and belief, neither letter was ultimately delivered to the OR Staff.”

Jane Doe’s allegations come next.

“Commencing at a point in time not earlier than March 2010, Dr. Basudeb Saha conduct included conduct directed at Jane Doe which included touching of Jane Doe’s genital area during sit-down surgeries and touching of her left breast through her clothing.

“…Dr. Basudeb Saha on at least 10 separate occasions placed or removed objects into or from the shirt pocket of Jane Doe scrubs by either placing his hand along with an object into the scrub shirt pocket while it was worn by Jane Doe. While Dr. Basudeb Saha either placed items in the scrub shirt pocket or attempted to remove items from the scrub shirt pocket, Dr. Basudeb Saha touched Jane Doe’s left breast through her clothing.

“During one such occurrence, Dr. Basudeb Saha placed his hand into the empty scrub shirt pocket of Jane Doe and articulated ‘what’s in there?’ while fondling Jane Doe’s left breast.”

Finally, what allegedly happened to Jane Roe is summarized.

“At a point in time in the year 2002 the exact date of which is not known, Dr. Basudeb Saha, has fondled the breasts of Jane Roe, touched the genital areas of Jane Roe.

“Commencing at a time in late fall early winter of 2010, the exact date is unknown Dr Basudeb Saha attempted on at least 10 separate occasions to either place or remove objects into or from the shirt pocket of Jane Roe scrubs by either placing his hand along with an object into the scrub shirt pocket or retrieve an item by placing his hand into the scrub shirt pocket while it was worn by Jane Roe. While Dr. Basudeb Saha either placed items in the scrub shirt pocket or attempted to remove items from the scrub shirt pocket, Dr. Basudeb Saha touched Jane Roe left breast through her clothing.

“On at least two separate occasions, after Christmas 2010, and before December 2011 Dr. Basudeb Saha placed his hand between the legs of Jane Roe.

“At a point in time in 2011, the specific date is unknown, but during sit-down surgerys Dr. Basudeb Saha would grab Jane Roe’s legs with his legs by pinching his thighs together as Jane Roe sat across from him during surgery and would press his knee into her genital area or press his genital area upon Jane Roe’s knee.”

A jury trial is requested.

When I heard about the court suit against the owner of one of two tourist sites in Fox River Grove, I could do nothing but figuratively scratch my head.

There are pretty much only two reasons that people would come to Fox River Grove.

The Norge Ski Jump is, of course, the one that draws the most visitors.  That’s where I took the photo on the masthead of McHenry County Blog.

The second reason is the Bettendrof Castle that can be seen from Route 14.

I remember when it was promoted as a honeymoon destination.

I am certain that a tourist outreach effort on Fox River Grove’s behalf could draw visitors who might be induced to spend money elsewhere.

There used to be a third reason, the Fox River Grove Picnic Grove.

Fox River Grove officials didn’t tear it down and turn it into a parking lot.  It turned into an upscale neighborhood.

But no longer is the area the biker guy’s son’s “Dreamy land,” as his father explained his son’s description of it in the re-zoning hearing.

So if FRG wanted to draw tourists, its got the ski jump and the castle.

Those who don’t want the castle in their neighborhood were, in all likelihood, not even residents of the area when construction started.

It was 1931 when Teddy Bettendorf started his Vienden Castle, named after a Luxembourg town.  He worked on it until his death in 1967.

How important is the castle?

Last September, the McHenry County Historical Society designated it an historic site.

The time to stop it is long gone.

Now neighbors, in a classic, but oh so belated NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) effort convinced “city hall” to go after the Castle’s owner.

In any event, the Village attorney filed suit against current owner Michael Strohl in August.  Strohl bought the property in 1985.

It’s zoned residential.  Seven lots.

Not enough room for a joust, but a lot of property.  Enough for a drawbridge, moat and wishing well.

The only sign on the property says, “Not Open to the Public.”

(I think it should be.  I’d love to tour it, but the Village Board, figuring out there are more voters in the neighborhood that in the castle, by their actions apparently don’t agree.)

People have asked for tours and Mr. Strohl has given them without charge, according to a decision handed down by Judge Micheal Feetterer today.

This case started when Mr. Strohl agreed to a McHenry County Historical Society request to allow a group of senior citizens to tour his castle.

The village issued a one-day overweight permit to allow a bus to reach the property.

The bus unloaded the seniors and the bus left.

That’s what neighbors Diane Durso and Theodore Johnson testified.

The tour started at 9 AM.  The bus returned to pick up its passengers at about 10.

That’s when the castle’s owner was issued a “Non-Traffic Complaint and Notice to Appear” for operating a “home occupation” from a residence without first obtaining “a special use permit.”

Ironically, the village allows home occupations, but has some restrictions:

1. No signs indicating that the home or accessory building are being used for any purpose other than a residence.
2. No activity or display outside that will indicate there is any utilization of the property but for a residence.
3. No more than two people may engage in the home occupation.
4. No external alterations may be made to the residence that would diminish the residential character of the buildings located there.
5. All activities shall be inside.
6. The traffic level on the street must not be increased because of the home business.
7. No more than 25% of the floor space or 500 square feet may be allocated to the business use.
8. No hazards may exist that would not be in an ordinary home.
9. The resident must be in compliance with all other ordinances.
10. Only one home occupation is allowed.

(Sounds as if people in FRG wouldn’t be allowed to run two internet businesses, even if only one computer were used.)

Since the tour was outside, Judge Feetterer observed, if he held it was a home occupation, a special use permit would have been required.

But that was not his finding.

The Judge notes FRG has no definition of “occupation” in its ordinance. He emphasizes this part of Black’s Law Dictionary: “…a person’s usual or principal work or business.”

The decision then points out that Mr. Strohl didn’t charge the tour group members nor had he ever don’t so before.

He even cites that a complaining neighbor, Diana Durso, a 424 Concord Street resident since 1994, that the August tour bus was the only one she had ever seen.

That was “de minimus” and not indicative of a home occupation or business being operated on the property, the Judge said.

“Not guilty,” ruled the Court.

Before the case started, Mr. Srtohl asked permission to host

• scheduled tours
• dinners for groups and businesses
• weddings and receptions
• anniversaries
• family reunions
• corporate events
• local government events
• charitable functions
• political fundraisers
• school field trips

But he withdrew that application.

Judge Feetterer notes that nothing in the zoning ordinance limits the number of people who can be invited to one’s home.

And doing so is consistent with residential use.

Nothing in the zoning ordinance about giving the grand tour of ones home or property either.

And the Village’s complaint about the people arriving in a bus apparently had the Judge scratching his head.

After all, the Village issued an overweight permit for the day in question.

He points out that parking vehicles on one’s property or in front of neighbors is “consistent with property zoned residential.”

(If this is beginning to sound like the Judge is having a successful Whack a Mole game at Fox River Grove’s expense, your interpretation parallels mine.)

The judge surmised that the Historical Society bus tour was only the second in 17 years of Mr. Strohl’s ownership.

That merited a second “Not Guilty.”

Fox River Grove seems to have won only one point.

Strohl sought to invoke the Illinois Citizen Participation Act as a defense mechanism. That was not allowed.

The attorney playing the role of Knight in Shining Armor in the case was Woodstock’s Robert T. Hanlon.

Zane Seipler won a victory over former employer Sheriff Keith Nygren Thursday.

Nygren is the man who fired Seipler and against whom Seipler ran unsuccessfully in the Republican primary election almost two years ago, plus filed a wrongful termination action in Federal Court and an appeal to an arbitrator under his union’s contract on which he has prevailed on three levels so far.

The judge in the case, Thomas Meyer, is the same judge who ruled that Nygren should follow an arbitrator’s order and re-hire Seipler.  That ruling has been upheld by the Appellate Court, but Nygren has appealed the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Judge Meyer reversed his ruling to allow Nygren’s participation in Seipler’s effort to get a Special Prosecutor to investigate the possibility of criminal wrong-doing on the part of the Sheriff.  Previously, he has indicated that he didn’t know if he had made the correct decision.

Meyer had allowed Nygren to participate in the case in which Seipler was seeking the naming of a Special Prosecutor to probe, to put it in Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz’ words after the Thursday hearing,

• felony theft
• official misconduct
• misappropriation of funds

Horwitz alleged the crime Nygren committed was “stealing public money to promote [his] private interest [that is, Nygren's campaign].”

“That is not a dispute about points on a star anymore than mail fraud is about “putting a stamp on a letter.”

There were seven attorneys in Judge Meyer’s courtroom with an interest in the case.

Four took part in the proceedings:

• Nygren’s personal attorney Mark Gummerson
• Gummerson associate Rebecca Lee
• Special Assistant State’s Attorney William Caldwell
• Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz

In addition, two attorneys were watching the proceedings:

• Assistant State’s Attorney Donna Kelly, the person who advised State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi in his deposition and
• Don Leist, now working for Nygren in the capacity of Equal Opportunity Employment Officer with “other duties as may be specifically assigned to the EEO by the Sheriff, included but not limited to performing any mandated or permitted function of action allowed to be performed by the EEO or by the Sheriff,” according to the job solicitation.

In addition, attorney Robert Hanlon, who represented Seipler at the last hearing, was in attendance.

Also in the room were Nygren, sitting next to his new in-house attorney and Seipler, who sat behind Nygren.  The Sheriff left the room after the Judge ruled against his continued participation in the case.

Much of the day’s arguments were about difficult to understand civil practice questions.  The technicalities were pretty impossible to follow without the statutory citations.

Resolving them leads to “the last stage of the case,” Horwitz explained.  “We’ve gotten through all the procedural hurdles,” characterizing the almost two-year case as “not ordinary litigation.”

Prior to rendering his decision, Meyer said, “I have [had] serious concern about the direction in which case is going, but that has been resolved.”

The Judge then said, “I have no alternative but to strike Sheriff Nygren’s [ability to intervene].”

Efforts by Caldwell to argue that the merits (or lack thereof) of any criminal case and that the issue should be settled in the political arena were short-circuited by the Court, who was determined to stick to whether the State’s Attorney’s position matched those which would allow the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.

“I’m not going to investigate the Sheriff,” Meyer said, indicating that would be the job of a Special Prosecutor, if one were appointed.

Caldwell made his point, indicating he wanted to preserve the issue for appeal purposes.

Horwitz summarized Bianchi’s position that he would not investigate Nygren because, if he did, those suing the Sheriff or his Deputies could claim the State’s Attorney had a conflict, forcing Bianchi to hire outside attorneys a practice he promised to virtually eliminate when he ran for his office seven years ago.

Horwitz also pointed out that by appointing the Appellate Prosecutor as the Special Prosecutor it would cost county taxpayers no more than they are already paying.

After considering the arguments in chambers, Judge Meyer denied another motion to dismiss Seipler’s case observing,

“[We're] probably at a point where we can move to a resolution of this matter.”

“A decision on the merits?” Caldwell asked.

That was what the Judge had decided.

Attorneys will return in January and February.

“We don’t want a motion for sanctions hanging over our heads,” Gummerson interjected, saying, “We’re ready to argue [now].”

Lee referred to a second motion for sanctions which she said was “clearly on is face designed to harass Mr. Gummerson.”

The Judge gave time to everyone to reply to the others’ motions, as well as to further brief the case, if they wished.

Such arguments should be limited to “the statutes,” Judge Meyer said.

The Judge ordered that parties to the Bianchi deposition be given a copy of the audio recording.