Van Guilder vs. Glasgow - case dismissed

Judge throws out Van Guilder civil rights suit

A federal judge threw out a lawsuit this month against Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow.
The suit was in retribution for Glasgow doing his job – as is his duty – “to investigate facts and determine whether an offense has been committed,” according to the court.

Glasgow was sued in his individual capacity. Under state law, Glasgow is considered a state official, rather than county or local official. According to the court, the Illinois State Lawsuit Immunity Act provides that the state cannot be sued unless one of a limited number of exceptions applies.

The suit was filed by Rocquin Van Guilder, of Lowell, Indiana. Van Guilder was the former property manager and ex-vice president at Hanson Professional Services, the agency contracted by the Illinois Department of Transportation for managing the state-owned property set aside for a proposed airport in eastern Will County. Prior to his working for Hanson, Van Guilder worked for Earth Tech, formerly TAMS, the IDOT’s airport consultant. Van Guilder had since 1988 been the project manager for the South Suburban Airport project.

Van Guilder attempted to sue Glasgow for malicious prosecution, because Glasgow brought charges against Van Guilder and his son, Lee, who worked for his father. The suit was filed in Chicago’s Northern District Court in April 2007; just two months after the two were acquitted in a Will County court room for a misdemeanor property damage lawsuit brought by Glasgow.

Van Guilder, who claimed he suffered monetary loss and expenses, humiliation, damage to his reputation, pain, suffering, fear and anxiety, was asking for an amount in excess of $200,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages.

Van Guilder’s claim that Glasgow initiated charges against him and his son for political reasons and for public relations purposes so as to bolster his standing with his constituents just didn’t pan out.

Glasgow charged the Van Guilders after a Dec. 1, 2006 incident when, in defiance of landowner Mark Baugh, a subcontractor hired by Hanson, drove heavy equipment across Baugh’s farm field.

Glasgow’s attorney Martin W. McMannaman of Lowis & Gellen LLP, Chicago, filed a motion in June to dismiss the case because as a public official and prosecutor, Glasgow enjoys immunity from prosecution.
District Court Judge Ruben Castillo held that Glasgow was immune from prosecution.

According to the court, “Under Illinois law, the state’s attorney is vested with exclusive discretion to determine whether to initiate criminal charges, and to decide which charges to bring.”

I don't buy George Ryan's apology

Isn't it interesting that George Ryan has now apologized for his crimes against the people of Illinois? I may be living in another state now, but I was an Illinois resident and taxpayer during Ryan's tenure as Illinois governor. Weren't we foolish not to elect Glenn Poshard?

Like most Illinoisans, I am also very much opposed to the release of George Ryan for any circumstances. I reiterate — from a commentary I wrote for the local paper — George Ryan's sentence should stand.

Despite what former Gov. Jim Thompson says, and who would ever question his judgement, I can't believe Ryan has had a change of heart, or a anything remotely related to such a human component. There is however, what Ryan is all about, the political component — the save your own ass component — of potentially winning a commutation of Ryan's sentence. Perhaps a public apology was a requirement for consideration by President Bush. But the timing becomes interesting in light of the recent arrest of the current governor. Perhaps 'the apology' was in the works already and the political train en route to Ryan's freedom, was already moving. I would say that any president who would let Ryan out of jail would be a fool, but there really is no point in speculating further on that thought.

I will never forget my own dealings with Ryan. Arrogant isn't enough to describe him. From my observance, seeing "the look" from George Ryan conjured up thoughts of snakes coming out of his head because "the look" could almost turn you to stone. I recall a press conference where I asked him a question. Instead of an intelligent answer, I got "the look." And this was not an isolated event. I disagreed with George Ryan. Simply, he didn't like people who disagreed with him.

George Ryan sentence should stand

What are U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and Gov. Rod Blagojevich thinking? Are they really considering asking President George W. Bush to commute the sentence of former Illinois Governor George Ryan?

Ryan was indicted in federal court on Dec. 17, 2003. The charges alleged that he accepted free vacations and other perks while doling out state contracts to lobbyist friends. Ryan was convicted on all counts against him April 17, 2006. On Sept. 6, he was sentenced to 6 ½ years in prison for racketeering, conspir-acy and fraud. Ryan reported to a Wisconsin prison Nov. 7, 2007. In February of this year, he was transferred to his present location -- the penitentiary in Terre Heute, Indiana.

George Ryan is not just an eld-erly man who spends idle time contemplating how he ended up behind bars, or how he could have done things differently. He is not just a loving grandpa and devoted husband, father, and brother, although he may very well be all those things.

It is what else there is about George Ryan that has put him in prison and should keep him there. He grabbed power from his position of authority and held the fate of people’s lives in his hands. He treated the responsi-bility that accompanies that power with little or no respect. I can attest that if you disagreed with George Ryan, you were treated with the utmost disdain. While he was good to his own circle of friends and those who could provide perks to him, he did not offer the same courtesy to everyone else.

George Ryan is a convicted felon, whose jail time is the re-sult of the justice system finally doing its job, despite climbing deliberately through every loop-hole available to circumvent it.

It mustn’t be forgotten that Ryan and his pro-bono legal team, led by one of the former governor boys’ club members, tried every angle to work the system in Ryan’s favor to keep him out of jail. This was despite George Ryan being the cause of pain, suffering, and even death in his routine dealings as Secre-tary of State and later as Gover-nor of the State of Illinois.

George Ryan treated Illinois as his own personal fiefdom and he has no regrets or remorse for his actions.

It seemed to take forever for Ryan to actually be sent to prison – many months after he was convicted and sentenced. To let him out of jail after serving such a short portion of his 6 ½ year sentence would, in my opin-ion, be a slap in the face of every Illinois resident. Similar senti-ments have been echoed by nu-merous newspaper editorials, surveys, commentaries and blogs. My voice is just one more in the mix.

Bush has granted 171 pardons and commuted the sentence of eight people during his eight years as president. The latest round came last month when Bush issued 14 pardons. Ryan’s name was not among them, nor should it be.

Some claim health risks associated with sludge application

Biosolids applied to the land for the purpose of enriching the soil is being touted as free fertilizer for farmers.

But some question the real cost – the long range implications of land application of sewage sludge – or biosolids.

The practice of trucking sewage sludge from municipal and city sewage treatment plants to apply onto farm fields has been going on for years. Land applications are generally made in the spring, fall, and after the wheat crop is harvested.

But, at least one eastern Will County resident, Dale Waldvogel, whose family raises animals on their Will Township farm, is concerned about the practice fearing that it is a hazard to the soil, environment, and ultimately, human health.

Waldvogel watches each year, first noticing what he describes as a “horrible smell.” Then there is the seemingly never-ending convoy of heavy trucks filled with the stuff that traverse the country roads that aren’t designed to accommodate them. But he has greater fears than those mere annoyances. He fears the safety of the practice of land application.

Waldvogel is not alone.

There are questions about the land application practice, not only in Will County, but in small rural towns across the country, as well as in Canada, Australia, Europe, and other parts of the world.

Biosolids are the solid waste by-product from municipal sewage treatment – the result of everything flushed down toilets and poured down drains. Solid waste managers claim the dried, treated sludge is safe enough to put on the strawberry patch. But is it really?

The Sierra Club and others don’t think so. While the Sierra Club is not opposed to the use of pathogen-free, pollutant-free treated waste used as fertilizer, they stipulate that to be safe, there must be a separation of human waste from industrial waste.

They classify urban sludges as “highly complex, unpredictable biologically active mixture of organic material and human pathogens, some of which are resistant to antibiotics or cannot be destroyed through composting sludge.

“It can contain thousands of industrial chemicals, including dozens of carcinogens, hormone disrupting chemicals, toxic metals, dioxins, radionuclides and other persistent bioaccumulative poisons.”

According to the Sierra Club, the Federal Clean Water Act defines sewage sludge as a pollutant and banned the practice of dumping it into the ocean in 1989.

Land application was the answer to the question of what to do with an estimated 10 to 15 million dry metric tons of sewage sludge produced each year.

In 1993, the U.S. EPA issued its land application rule for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludges, (40 CFR, Part 503). The new law gave sludge a bit of a makeover.

To enhance its acceptability for land application, the agency began to call it “recycling.” And if it met the newly-created EPA standards, the new term for the sludge became “biosolids”.

With the new terminology came a new classification. As recycled biosolids rather than simple sewage sludge, it was no longer considered a pollutant, which exempted it from the most stringent laws governing waste disposal.

One of the reports upon which Sierra Club based its opinion and written policy, was the 2002 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The report warned that sewage sludge standards needed a new scientific basis.

“The agency (EPA) should update its standards using improved methods for assessing health risks,” the council stated, adding that the agency should also further study whether treated sewage sludge causes health problems for workers who apply it to land and for residents who live nearby.”

The Sierra Club charges that the regulatory standards for biosolids includes only nine metals, making the U.S. land application regulations the least protective of any in the industrialized world.

In Canada for instance, land application of biosolids is permitted, according to one Ontario chapter of the Sierra Club. It added that in the U.S., the application of biosolids is actually endorsed by the EPA.

According to the Cornell Waste Management Institute 2007 study for applying sludge to farm fields, developed by nine scientists from five universities, “No sewage biosolids management method is risk free.” They advocate working to establish guidelines for the most stringent requirements, but acknowledge that the practice carries with it “a certain degree of risk that is not fully knowable or quantified.”

The study states, “The benefits of amending soils with sewage biosolids are well documented primarily linked to the fact that sewage biosolids return nutrients and organic matter to the soil. However, management practices for sewage biosolids must include an awareness of potential adverse impact on soil, animal and human health. The presence of trace elements, synthetic organic chemicals and disease-causing organisms (pathogens) places constraints on the management of sewage biosolids by land application.”

According to the Toronto Star which did a series of stories about the risks to human health and the environment by using sludge biosolids, there are other ways to treat the mounds of waste being flushed into toilets and poured into drains.

It pointed out that Europe is discontinuing land application practices in an effort to preserve its agricultural soil. Instead they are utilizing non-polluting technology to convert sewage sludge from contaminated waste to a renewable resource to create biogas, heat, power, and energy.

Alternate disposal of waste is also being eyed in New Zealand where the sludge is being used in anaerobic ponds to harvest algae which is then converted into biofuel.

The treated liquid, after clarification could then be used for truck and car washing, as an ingredient in ready-mix concrete and as non-potable water for use in washing machines, toilets, and garden hoses.

New concerns about sludge application resulted from a ruling in March of this year, by a federal judge in Augusta, Georgia who ruled in favor of a farmer – Andy McElmurray – who sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture over poisoned land. McElmurray claimed the sewage-based fertilizer poisoned his land and killed his cows by the hundreds.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Alaimo awarded the farmer compensation for the 1,730 acres of poisoned ground on which McElmurray had planned to grow corn and cotton.

The sludge that was used on McElmurray’s land was reported to “contain levels of arsenic, toxic heavy metals and PCBs two to 2,5000 times the federal health standard.”

In a 45-page ruling Alaimo said, “The EPA not only used questionable data to examine the health risk on McElmurray’s farm, but that EPA officials took extraordinary steps to quash scientific dissent questioning of EPA’s biosolids program.”

Judge Alaimo wrote that data endorsed by Agriculture and EPA officials about toxic heavy metals found in the free sludge provided by Augusta’s sewage treatment plant was ‘unreliable and incomplete, and in some cases fudged.’”

The City of Augusta, where the sludge originated recently settled a lawsuit with McElmurray for $1.5 million for the dead cows. A nearby dairy farmer, Bill Boyce also won a $550,000 court judgment against the city on a similar claim that sludge was responsible for the deaths of more than 300 of his cows.

Will County State's Attorney sued for doing his job

Attorneys for Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow will return to federal court Monday, June 30 to defend him against charges of malicious prosecution.

A suit was filed this spring by former airport contractor Rocquin VanGuilder following an acquittal of him and his son Lee on charges of misdemeanor criminal trespassing and criminal damage to property. VanGuilder, the ex-vice president of Hanson Professional Services, which is contracted by the State of Illinois to manage the state-owned property purchased for the proposed Peotone airport, is asking for $200,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages.

Glasgow’s attorney Martin W. McMannaman of Lowis & Gellen LLP, Chicago, filed a motion last Friday to dismiss the case because as a public official and a prosecutor, Glasgow is immune from prosecution.

It is Glasgow’s duty as the Will County State’s Attorney to meet with witnesses and to prosecute violators of the law.

Glasgow charged the VanGuilders after the Dec. 1, 2006 incident when, in defiance of landowner Mark Baugh, a subcontractor for the State of Illinois hired by Hanson, drove heavy equipment across Baugh’s farm field.

VanGuilder claims that Glasgow publicly stated there was insufficient evidence against him, until after meeting with representatives of the Will County Board, Will Township, and the organization STAND (Shut This Airport Nightmare Down), which caused Glasgow to have a “change of heart.”

VanGuilder claims that Glasgow initiated the charges against him and his son for political motives and for public relations purposes so as to bolster his standing with his constituents.

But this isn’t the first time that VanGuilder has been taken to task on behalf of local landowners in the proposed airport site.

In June 2003, members of STAND met with Timothy Martin, the former transportation secretary. Also in attendance were VanGuilder and Christine Cochrane, ex-airport project manager. Residents confronted the two about what they considered unfair treatment. And they complained to Martin about the treatment they had received at the hands of Hanson employees. Particularly at issue were letters threatening condemnation of their property through eminent domain.

Judy Ogalla, whose family owns a 160-acre farm in the airport site, told Martin that she was appalled that Hansen would call her the day before Christmas Eve. Ogalla said a message was left on her answering machine, so that her three young children could hear it, stating that this is her last chance to sell before the state takes their home.

Martin told the landowners that condemnation would be a last resort. He was visibly angry as he looked directly at Cochrane and VanGuilder. He scolded them as he ordered them to refrain from contact with landowners for 60 days. Further, he said that all issues related to the project must cross his desk.

A July 27, 2005 headline in the Joliet Herald News told a similar story. It read, State to address Peotone airport complaints – Footprint residents: Agents use deception, threats, intimidation to get owners to sell land.

VanGuilder was also at the center of the controversy that erupted in Aug. 7, 2006 when 14 structures were demolished in Will Township. Even State Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson suggested there was a conflict of interest when one company was expected to negotiate and buy properties, rent them, maintain them, and want to destroy them to make way for an airport.

VanGuilder was roundly criticized to the point that his firing was discussed, as he attempted to defend the decision to demolish houses he claimed were not cost effective to rent.

The case in point was the demolition of the Krygsheld house at Eagle Lake and Kedzie roads which was purchased by IDOT for $416,000, just two years after it was built. Two years later, the four-year old house was deemed uninhabitable and torn down. Such demolition flies in the face of statutes governing IDOT’s land acquisition for future rights of way, which states land acquired should be rented.

State Rep. Lisa Dugan was also incensed when VanGuilder attempted to discuss deficient electrical problems with the house. As a former licensed electrician she bristled at his comments. She said the Will County Building Department, with its tough building inspection codes, would not have approved the house for occupancy, had it not been up to code.

Prior to VanGuilder’s employment with Hanson, he was the Project Manager for TAMS, the consultant almost solely responsible for 20 years of airport study. Controversial reports produced by TAMS have been under scrutiny since the project began in 1985.

Does Chicagoland really need another airport?

In the May 25 Tribune transportation section special, "O'Hare: Built in a year," David Young draws a contrast between the rapid construction of O'Hare Airport a half century ago and today's protracted efforts to build public works projects. He cites the current O'Hare expansion and planning for "the region's proposed third airport near south suburban Peotone."

A little noticed advantage of long lead times is that policymakers have the opportunity to reconsider the initial premise before final decisions are literally cast in concrete. Two decades since Illinois taxpayers began footing the bill for Peotone "studies," the question remains whether there's any public benefit to paving over the farm fields of eastern Will County.

Clearly, it's wrong to describe Peotone as the "region's proposed third airport." In a 1988 report, IDOT acknowledged the state of Wisconsin's contention that Milwaukee's Mitchell Field, which serves many people from northern Illinois, is the third regional airport. In a 2008 report, IDOT acknowledged the state of Indiana's contention that Gary-Chicago Airport - a Midway-like facility that has yet to attract regularly scheduled commercial passenger service - is the region's third airport.

Does Chicagoland really need a fifth regional airport?

The Illinois General Assembly should commission an independent study that considers all local infrastructure costs, as well as actual and projected revenue losses that would result from IDOT's plans to remove up to 35 square miles of eastern Will County real estate from the tax rolls. The study should evaluate airport-related costs and benefits based on various scenarios, including an assumption that a Peotone airport would attract no daily commercial passenger service for many years, if ever.

—Patti Schoenbeck, Monee Township Supervisor, Monee

—Brian Cann, Will Township Supervisor, Peotone

—Bob Howard, Washington Township Supervisor, Beecher

Township officials ask for independent airport needs study

Three Eastern Will County Township Supervisors are calling for the Illinois General Assembly to finally answer the question of need for another area airport. And, they are asking that the study be done by an independent organization.

A letter appeared this morning, June 12 in the Chicago Tribune. It was penned by three township supervisors: Patti Schoenbeck, Monee; Brian Cann, Will; and Bob Howard, Washington.

The three would like to see an independent study that considers all local infrastructure costs, as well as actual and projected revenue losses that would result from IDOT’s plans to remove up to 35 square miles of eastern Will County real estate from the tax rolls. They write that the study should evaluate airport-related costs and benefits based on various scenarios, including an assumption that a Peotone airport would attract no daily commercial passenger service for many years, if ever.

The letter also debunks the state’s “third airport,” title.

“In a 1988 report, IDOT acknowledged the state of Wisconsin’s contention that Milwaukee's Mitchell Field, which serves many people from northern Illinois, is the third regional airport. In a 2008 report, IDOT acknowledged the state of Indiana's contention that Gary-Chicago Airport - a Midway-like facility that has yet to attract regularly scheduled commercial passenger service - is the region's third airport,” the trio writes. They ask if Chicagoland really needs a fifth regional airport.

The letter was prompted by a story in the Tribune last month that claims long lead times are nothing new in the airport game. It cites the contrast of the rapid construction of O’Hare Airport a half century ago with today’s protracted efforts to build public works projects. As example, the writer drew the example of the current O’Hare expansion plan and the proposed Peotone airport.

The three township supervisors point out, “A little-noticed advantage of long lead time is that policymakers can reconsider the initial premise before final decisions are cast in concrete.”

They also state that two decades have passed since Illinois taxpayers began footing the bill for Peotone “studies,” yet the question remains whether there is any public benefit to paving over the farm fields of Eastern Will County.

Historically, the question of need for a new airport has had little study. In countless airport meetings over the past twenty years, sponsored by various organizations, citizens have attempted to ask the question of need. Invariably that turned into the meeting sponsor scolding, “This is not the time to debate who is for or against an airport.” Perhaps now is time for that debate.

An independent study would be a welcome change. Most of the studies have been performed by IDOT-chosen consultants were paid by IDOT. It is no secret that such consultants are generally paid to produce a desired conclusion. Since Illinois became the sole sponsor for the project, the same consultants – TAMS, which has been taken over by Earth-Tech and the sub consultants, the al Chalabi Group, Ltd. — have been used, despite questions about the assumptions used, and the conclusions they have reached.

High court rejects Ryan appeal, Bush pardon seen as last option

The curtain is about to fall on chances for freedom for ex-Governor George Ryan.

Short of a Presidential pardon, Ryan will remain in prison to serve his 6 1/2 year sentence for corruption. And that is just what is being considered by Ryan’s high-powered legal team led by ex-Gov. James Thompson.

Thompson is planning to ask President George W. Bush to commute Ryan’s sentence. This comes after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Ryan’s appeal and that of Ryan’s co-convicted ex-business partner Lawrence Warner.

The pair was convicted April 17, 2006, of multiple counts of racketeering, conspiracy, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and tax violation while Ryan served as Secretary of State.

Ryan is expected to be released from prison in 2013, but with a Bush pardon, his release could be right around the corner.

Speculation is high about whether or not Bush would consider granting a pardon to the disgraced ex-governor. Some claim that Republican ties are strong enough to encourage such an act, yet others believe there is little parity between Bush and Ryan politics. The most stark example of that is Ryan’s moratorium on the death penalty, something that Bush clearly favors.

Ryan himself might be overlooked for a Bush pardon, but it could come as a favor to longtime Republican fundraiser Thompson.

Once requested, Bush will have until his last day in office, January 19, to make a decision as many other former presidents have done.

Thompson has taken the legal proceedings as far as he could, maintaining that because of some irregularities with the jury in the six-month trial for Ryan and his pal two years ago, the two did not receive a fair trial. Thompson’s opinion was bolstered by the sole dissent in the Court of Appeals and a minority opinion by Circuit Judges who ultimately refused to rehear Ryan’s case. But that argument failed to convince a federal appeals court to grant a new trial. And, it failed to sway the nation’s high court.

Last November U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens refused to allow Ryan to stay out of jail while his case was being appealed to the high court.

In April, U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief stating that the U.S. Supreme Court should refuse to hear the appeal of convicted ex-Governor George Ryan.

The U.S. Solicitor General argues for the Government of the United States in front of the U.S. Supreme Court when the government is involved in a case.

Clement said complaints about jurors were misguided and a hearing was not warranted.

Ryan reported to prison in November 2007 to serve a six and one-half year sentence. He was initially sent to Oxford Institution, in Wisconsin, but was recently moved to Terre Haute Federal Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. Under new regulations, of which Ryan was unaware at the time of his sentencing, Oxford could no longer care for inmates over 70 years of age. Ryan is 74.

George Ryan’s appeal opposed by Solicitor General

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief Friday, April 25 stating that the U.S. Su-preme Court should refuse to hear the appeal of convicted ex-Governor George Ryan.

The U.S. Solicitor General, who was nominated by President George Bush in March, 2005 and confirmed by the Senate in June.

By definition, the solicitor general is to argue for the Gov-ernment of the United States in front of the U.S. Supreme Court when the government is involved in a case.

Clement said complaints about jurors were misguided and a hearing was not warranted.

Following Ryan’s conviction, his attorneys Dan Webb and former Gov. James R. Thompson did as they promised – to take Ryan’s case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Thompson was adamant that Ryan should receive a fair trial. His argument, that the trial was not fair, was based on some in-consistencies with some of the jurors during the six-month long trial. Thompson’s opinion was bolstered by the sole dissent in the Court of Appeals and a mi-nority opinion by Circuit Judges who ultimately refused to rehear Ryan’s case.

On Jan. 23, Thompson filed a petition urging the U.S. Supreme Court to act on Ryan’s behalf to overturn his conviction.

That was a final step in a long line of legal maneuvers that could no longer keep Ryan out of federal prison.

Clement also weighed in last November when Ryan’s bail was denied by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Ryan reported to prison in No-vember 2007 to serve a six and one-half year sentence. He was initially sent to Oxford Institu-tion, in Wisconsin, but was re-cently moved to Terre Haute Federal Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. Under new regu-lations, of which Ryan was un-aware at the time of his sentenc-ing, Oxford could no longer care for inmates over 70 years of age. Ryan is 74.

Ryan and his business partner Lawrence Warner were con-victed on April 17, 2006, of mul-tiple counts of racketeering, con-spiracy, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and tax violation while he served as Secretary of State.

Ryan is expected to be re-leased from prison in 2013.

George Ryan’s appeal opposed by Solicitor General

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief Friday, April 25 stating that the U.S. Supreme Court should refuse to hear the appeal of convicted ex-Governor George Ryan.

The U.S. Solicitor General, who was nominated by President George Bush in March, 2005 and confirmed by the Senate in June.

By definition, the solicitor general is to argue for the Government of the United States in front of the U.S. Supreme Court when the government is involved in a case.
Clement said complaints about jurors were misguided and a hearing was not warranted.

Following Ryan’s conviction, his attorneys Dan Webb and former Gov. James R. Thompson did   as they promised – to take Ryan’s case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Thompson was adamant that Ryan should receive a fair trial. His argument, that the trial was not fair, was based on some inconsistencies with some of the jurors during the six-month long trial. Thompson’s opinion was bolstered by the sole dissent in the Court of Appeals and a minority opinion by Circuit Judges who ultimately refused to rehear Ryan’s case.

On Jan. 23, Thompson filed a petition urging the U.S. Supreme Court to act on Ryan’s behalf to overturn his conviction.

That was a final step in a long line of legal maneuvers that could no longer keep Ryan out of federal prison.

Clement also weighed in last November when Ryan’s bail was denied by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Ryan reported to prison in November 2007 to serve a six and one-half year sentence. He was initially sent to Oxford Institution, in Wisconsin, but was recently moved to Terre Haute Federal Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. Under new regulations, of which Ryan was unaware at the time of his sentencing, Oxford could no longer care for inmates over 70 years of age. Ryan is 74.

Ryan and his business partner Lawrence Warner were convicted on April 17, 2006, of multiple counts of racketeering, conspiracy, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and tax violation while he served as Secretary of State.

Ryan is expected to be released from prison in 2013.

Property Manager Roc Van Guilder sues Will State’s Attorney

Rocquin Van Guilder, of Lowell, Indiana, the former property manager for Hanson Professional Services based in Springfield, Illinois, has filed a civil rights lawsuit against Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

Van Guilder and his son Lee were found not guilty on charges of misdemeanor criminal trespassing and criminal damage to property last February. A four-day trial was held before Will County Associate Judge Marilee Viola.

Alleging malicious prosecution, Van Guilder is asking for an amount in excess of $200,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages.

The complaint was filed April 1 in the Northern District Court in Chicago.

The Van Guilders were charged after an incident that occurred Dec. 1, 2006 when a subcontractor for the State of Illinois and hired by Hanson, drove heavy equipment across the farm field belonging to Mark Baugh, a rural Will Township resident.

Van Guilder claims that Glasgow publicly stated that there was insufficient evidence against him, until after meeting with representatives of the Will County Board, Will Township, and the organization STAND (Shut This Airport Nightmare Down), which caused Glasgow to have a “change of heart.”

Van Guilder claims that Glasgow initiated the charges against Van Guilder and his son, Lee, for political motives and for public relations purposes so as to bolster his standing with his constituents.

Van Guilder claims that Glasgow proceeded with criminal charges against him knowing there was no probable cause and that they were false.

The complaint alleges that Glasgow’s actions caused Van Guilder to suffer monetary loss and expenses, humiliation, damage to his reputation, pain, suffering, fear and anxiety.

Van Guilder has requested a jury trial. Judge Ruben Castillo will preside.

Neither side could be reached for a comment as of presstime.

Friendly condemnation is anything but friendly

There was something about that property.

The house at 28541 Kedzie Ave. in eastern Will County has been a sore spot for local residents for a very long time.

That house and property is the site of the first condemnation lawsuit slated to make way for a new airport at Peotone for which neighboring residents are vehemently opposed.

The suit, filed in Will County Circuit Court shortly after the state submitted new airport layout plans to the Federal Aviation Administration, is being called a “friendly condemnation,” which is a means of acquiring property without objection by the homeowner.

In this case, the property belongs to Helena D. Hudgins, an 80-year old woman who lives in Chicago rather than in eastern Will County. She wanted to sell the property but didn’t have a clear title. Perhaps if she had lived there, she might have felt differently. She might have become friendly with neighbors. Despite the distance between homes, neighbors who occupy the five– and ten-acre parcels, peppered among the larger acreage farmsteads, there is a feeling of a neighborhood in the once peaceful, farming community. Perhaps if she had lived there, everything would have been different for everyone.

But instead, her son lived there. Donald Hudgins and his wife Katherine moved there to keep dogs – mean, fighting dogs, according to neighbors. The two were arrested a year ago, pleading guilty to drug charges in November.

For a time, the Hudgins’ dogs terrified the neighborhood, roaming the country roads, even attacking family pets. During the time the two stayed at the house, there had been reports of large dead dogs reportedly strewn about in ditches. Sheriff’s deputies said they had found the rotting remains of dogs in black plastic garbage bags along the roadside.

The couple was also involved in drugs. In March 2006, after a tip from a motorist that drugs were being sold at the Hudgins’ home, the two were arrested. Police confiscated more than a kilogram of marijuana, 35 marijuana plants, 100 grams of cocaine, and over $1,600 in cash.

Donald Hudgins already had a record, with a felony conviction in Cook County in 1998 for unlawful use of a weapon and a conviction of possession of a controlled substance.

A plea agreement sent the couple to jail – Donald for two years and Katherine for six months.

When the two vacated the property, neighbors were relieved that they would no longer be terrorized.

Then they head about the ‘friendly condemnation’ suit. Wondering how an act that allows the state to ‘take’ private property could ever be considered friendly, it represented a terror of a different kind for them.

There has been a history of condemnation threats made by state officials throughout the years. Neighbors believe it is designed to scare people into selling property. And, for some that was the result. They have read the reports in the local papers about how IDOT Director Susan Shea boasted about this being the first of many condemnation lawsuits that would result in the agency acquiring the rest of the 3,285 acres needed to build the airport. The neighbors have heard it all before, since the airport has been in the planning stages for the last forty years, with the latest efforts undertaken solely by Illinois officials, dating back to the summer of 1985.

The landowners that remain unwilling sellers are furious that Shea makes it sound to others who only casually know, read, or hear about the project, that obtaining all the land needed for an airport will be a slam-dunk. They know better, because they have no intention of giving up the property that many of them have fought twenty years to hold onto.

They resent hearing Shea talk about how the price for the Hudgins house will set a base price for future condemnations. They don’t believe that for a minute, since they know each case is separate from another. And, if they ever do have to go to court, they vow to fight.

Many of them are skeptical of Shea’s enthusiasm, such as her elation at the new airport layout plan that led her to say, “The Lord was looking out for me when he designed this land.”

Since the state revised the plans, even more land is needed. The site is now 5,225 acres in size, up from slightly from the 4,112 they said they needed before. So far, the state owns 1,940 acres, a paltry amount in comparison.

The resentment only deepens with the talk of condemnation, since there is officially no approved project for which to take their homes and property.

Ryan moved to Indiana prison

Ex-governor George H. Ryan, 74, was transferred to a prison closer to his Kankakee home in the last days of February.

Ryan had chosen the Oxford Institution at Oxford, Wis., which is called the country club, as his preference when he began serving a six and one-half year prison sentence for corruption last November. But he was moved from what had become his home there. He was trans-ferred to the minimum-security Terre Haute Federal Institution at Terre Haute, Ind.

Unbeknownst to Ryan when he began serving his sentence, the medical care requirements at Ox-ford changed. Under new regula-tions, the Oxford facility could only care for inmates 70 years or younger. Ryan just turned 74.

The Terre Haute facility is lo-cated about 70 miles west of In-dianapolis on Interstate 70. It is a minimum-security institution that houses male inmates. A high-security institution shares the Federal Correctional Com-plex. It is at that maximum-security prison that the only death chamber in the federal pri-son system is housed. It is where Timothy McVeigh, the Okla-homa City bomber was executed in 2001.

Ironically, as governor, Ryan gained international attention for his declaration of a moratorium on executions in Illinois. He in-tended to revamp the capital punishment system.

While governor, he commuted all of the death sentences in Illi-nois. More than 160 inmates were given a reprieve, moving from death row to life in prison.

It was for that effort that Uni-versity of Illinois Law and Hu-man Rights Professor Francis Boyle has nominated Ryan for the Nobel Peace Prize for several consecutive years.

Because of the timing, some believed Ryan’s actions were simply a ruse to deflect interest from the scandal that ultimately cost him his freedom.

Ryan’s lawyers are still hoping for an appeal by the U.S. Su-preme Court to rehear his case. If there is no appeal, he is ex-pected to be released in 2013.

Bult Field to be incorporated into Peotone airport

While the Illinois Department of Transportation finally delivered its preferred layout plan for the proposed Peotone airport to the Federal Aviation Administration, it assumed the acquisition of Bult Field, the newly-renovated general aviation airport in eastern Will County along Kedzie Avenue.

That was news to the airport’s owner Jim Bult, who said he knew nothing about IDOT’s plan to acquire and incorporate his airport into the state’s airport.

Bult said Friday afternoon, just after the airport layout plan had been delivered to the Federal Aviation Administration, that he has had no talks with IDOT.

“There have been no offers to buy the property, nor any discussions about a joint use, or anything whatsoever,” he said.

“It is interesting that something is speaking that loudly for me,” Bult said of the airport layout plan, concluding, “I know nothing about it.”

The state’s report notes that the improvements at Bult Field, a new 5,000-foot long paved runway and substantial aircraft parking and storage space, have caused them to update their GA facility requirements in their master plan.

Ironically, it is the existence of Bult Field that caused IDOT to have to rethink the airport layout in the first place.

IDOT now makes the following assumption, as stated in the narrative of its plan.

“IDOT anticipates that Bult Field will be acquired and incorporated into the Inaugural Airport. It is expected that existing facilities at Bult Field will serve the General Aviation (GA) needs at SSA(South Suburban Airport). The airfield improvements that have been recently undertaken at Bult Field resulted in a significant increase in the number of based aircraft. As a result General Aviation/Corporate Aviation forecasts will be updated to reflect the changes that have occurred at Bult Field since October 2004.”

Under this scenario, the better Bult Field does in terms of a business — housing airplanes and providing increased take-offs and landings — the more IDOT will use its numbers to justify building an airport.

IDOT’s assumption is the latest in a long line of issues between the state and Jim Bult. Like other landowners in the area, Bult has received letters threatening condemnation. And, like other landowners, he ignored them, because like them, he is not a willing seller.

Bult bought the former Sanger Field, a small general aviation airstrip in disrepair, in 2004. He planned to make the improvements needed to house additional aircraft, including his own, as well as build a 5,000-foot concrete runway.

By July, 2006 he had completed all of the preliminary approvals he needed from Will County. But, at the eleventh hour, former Transportation Secretary Timothy Martin filed an objection. U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. did not object, but he made it known that he opposed Bult’s plan. No legal action was taken and Bult was free to proceed with upgrading the facility.

The work was completed by the end of the year. In mid-December, Bult sent the first of many letters to IDOT to request a final inspection.

It wasn’t until five months later that the state performed its obligatory final inspection. And, another month went by before a certificate of occupancy was issued allowing Bult to open the airport for business.

In addition to Bult Field, another reason IDOT had to rework its layout, was to satisfy federal agencies’ concerns about impacts on Black Walnut Creek.

IDOT has made numerous other changes since submissions of the layout plan in September 2005 and December 2005.

To diminish the impacts on Black Walnut Creek, the updated plan places the terminal complex approximately 2,300 feet east and 1,800 feet north of the runway.

Other highlights of the configuration of the inaugural airport include direct access to and from Interstate 57, by a new interchange and access road connecting the interstate to the terminal. It will go over Route 50 and the Illinois Central Railroad. Cargo access will be provided via Route 1 at Eagle Lake Road.

Access to the general aviation area will be via Offner and Crawford.

An air traffic control tower is expected to be located in a secured area, relatively central from the runway ends, approximately 2,600 feet north of the runway’s centerline. Access will be provided from Crawford via a new access road. The FAA will determine the location and final elevation.

Aircraft rescue, firefighting and snow removal complex will be fairly central and approximately 1,600 feet north of the runway. The fuel facility will be located within a secure area at the east side of the airfield to the north of the cargo facilities.

Beyond the Inaugural airport, the future layout plan will include up to six parallel east-west runways capable of accommodating four simultaneous approaches.

Support facilities can be developed along Eagle Lake Rd.

The ultimate size of the inaugural airport is 5,200 acres with an eye on the ultimate site at 20,032 acres.

Van Guilders acquitted in trespassing case

Roc Van Guilder and his son Lee were acquitted Friday of misdemeanor criminal trespassing and criminal damage to property in connection with a Dec. 1, 2006 incident.

On that day, and because of the weather, heavy equipment was banned from driving in certain areas of the rain-soaked township roads. So Baugh’s property was used instead, as the heavy equipment was ordered to make its way toward its destination – the first of a dozen or more houses the state purchased and prepared for demolition. The destruction of houses is meant to aid in the development of the proposed Peotone airport, though the project has yet to gain official approval by the FAA. The legal issue became all about who ordered the bulldozers to cross the property.

According to courtroom observers, Will County Associate Judge Marilee Viola felt that the state did not prove its case against the two contractors, believing they were not the ones to give the order to drive a piece of 80,000 lb. equipment across the farm field belonging to Mark and Lynn Baugh.

At the time of the incident, the Van Guilders were employed by Hanson Professional Services, Inc., the company hired by the elder Van Guilder’s former boss – ex-Transportation Secretary Kirk Brown – who upon retiring, also went to work for Hanson.

Van Guilder has a 20-year history with the airport project, having previously worked as the airport’s project manager for the state’s consultant, TAMS, which has been taken over by Earth-Tech.

Mark Baugh’s first reaction was disbelief, but not surprise. He is very disappointed in the ruling and said this may not be the end of it.

“I didn’t know what information the judge did and didn’t have,” Baugh said. Because he was a witness he wasn’t in the courtroom for all of the testimony, but added that the judge should have had all the information to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

“The fact that they didn’t have permission to cross my property should have been enough,” Baugh said. He added, “They (the Van Guilders) deceived the operators by telling them to ‘head west’ knowing there was private property to cross.

“It is far easier to ask for forgiveness after the fact, hoping they wouldn’t get caught, than to seek permission to use my property,” Baugh said. “What they did was wrong.”

Still, he is appreciative that Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow decided to prosecute the case. And, he is grateful for the efforts of those who investigated and prosecuted it.

Will County Board Member John Anderson was involved in this case, to the extent that he urged Glasgow to get involved.

“Today, I learned that Judge Viola acquitted the Van Guilders. I am disappointed by her decision and vehemently disagree with her conclusions, but I do respect her ruling,” Anderson said.

Anderson said that it was his understanding that Judge Viola believed there was insufficient notice that trespassing was not permitted.

“However, there is a ‘no trespassing sign’ in Mark Baugh's front yard,” Anderson pointed out. “Additionally, Lee Van Guilder himself testified that he walked up to the front door to ask permission to move the machinery through the property. Van Guilder would not have gone to ask permission if he really believed that the machine would be allowed to cross the property.”

Despite his disagreement with the judge’s decision, Anderson believes the Van Guilder's prosecution is still a win for the Baugh's and for residents living in the area of the proposed airport footprint.

“The mere fact that the Van Guilders were prosecuted sends a clear message that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated, and the rights of residents living in the footprint area command respect,” Anderson said, admitting that he has received dozens of complaints about trespassing by the Van Guilders and employees of IDOT or Hanson.

Anderson is also grateful to Glasgow. He said when he asked Glasgow to accompany him to the Baugh's property to view the damage, Glasgow drove across the county in a snow storm. He is also grateful to the prosecutors who worked so hard on the case.

Ryan lawyers appeal to Supreme Court

As predicted, attorneys for ex-Gov. George Ryan filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court last week.

Dan Webb and former Gov. James Thompson, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on Ryan’s behalf, seeking to overturn his conviction.

In November, 2007, Ryan began serving a six and one-half year prison sentence at a federal penitentiary in Oxford, Wisconsin.

More than a year before, on April 17, 2006, Ryan, along with his co-defendant and business partner, was convicted on multiple counts of racketeering, conspiracy, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and tax violations in connection with the ‘license for bribes’ scandal that began when Ryan was Secretary of State.

Short of appealing to President Bush for a pardon, this is Ryan’s last hope for freedom.

Ryan was supposed to report to prison by Jan. 4, 2006, but several attempts to overturn his conviction were attempted. He was, however, allowed to remain out of jail during the appeals process.

Ryan’s appeals fell short. A dissenting opinion on the Appeals Court, left the door open for Ryan’s attorneys to reach higher for an appeal.

Circuit Judge Michael Kanne issued the sole dissent last August when the Court of Appeals ruled against Ryan. Judge Kanne was also among the minority opinion in October when, by a vote of 6 to 3 vote, Circuit Judges refused to rehear Ryan’s case.

“The trial was riddled with errors that ultimately rendered the proceedings manifestly unfair and unjust, notwithstanding the production of overwhelming incriminating evidence against the appellants,” Kanne wrote, noting that the trial was “broken beyond repair.”

Thompson built his defense on his belief that Ryan did not have a fair trial.

“Ryan deserves a fair trail by jury no matter what the evidence is,” Thompson said, referring to jury misconduct, the sole subject of the appeals.

In the 37-page appeal, attorneys explored three questions. The first concerns the appropriate standard for determining when a deliberating juror in a criminal trial can be removed and replaced with an alternate.

The second question asks if a trial court commits structural error in permitting a jury verdict where more than half the jurors are interrogated in the middle of deliberations about their own misconduct in the presence of a prosecutor.

Finally, the third question asks whether a reviewing court must assess trial errors not only for their individual effects, but also for their cumulative effect on the trial proceedings.

“All these issues are the subject of widespread confusion and disagreement among the lower courts, and all are worthy of this Court’s review,” noted the appeal.

Also in question are the fifth and sixth amendments to the Constitution.

The fifth amendment, states that “No person shall be ... deprived of life liberty, or property, without due process of law ...”

The sixth amendment provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury, ...”

Experts have said there is an off-chance that the U.S. Supreme Court justices will agree to hear Ryan’s case, though only a small percentage of cases are heard by the high court. Although it was U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who denied Ryan’s request for bail.

Still affected by IDOT behavior

IDOT’s antics do not pale by time or distance. Despite my home address being more than 500 miles away, I find that some things back home still gall me.

After 20 years of watching the state try to build a new airport, the misrepresentation of facts, the cherry-picked information that justified an unending study process, and outright lies connected with the state’s effort to push an ill-conceived airport into eastern Will County, I still find the sight of a very nice country home being ripped to pieces, appalls me.

George Ochsenfeld of STAND (Shut This Airport Nightmare Down) called this “another IDOT rampage.) In a recent press release, Ochsenfeld said the people of eastern Will County are angry and distraught. Who can blame them?

It would be one thing to see the state tear down an old dilapidated building that no longer has a use, but to see a perfectly livable home destroyed for no good purpose, is reprehensible.

If this action were perpetuated by an individual, he would be labeled a madman. But it is not an individual. It is a group of them who claim to represent the sovereign State of Illinois. What a disgrace!

Where is the public accountability?

It isn’t just the devastation of a community, even local officials were slapped in the face by this recent action.

Last spring, 11 units of local government, including those in Beecher, Monee, and Peotone signed resolutions stating their opposition to further land acquisition, demolition of property, and the use of eminent domain until and if an airport is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Where is the proof that deemed this house not livable? Whatever happened to the state providing rental income to the local taxing bodies when state-owned property is taken off the tax rolls? Where is the proof that a new airport, for which land is being cleared, is needed? Where is the FAA certificate deeming the airport imminent?

At the very least, where was any effort on the state’s part to recoup the loss of $516,000 paid for this house just a little over a year ago? Did anyone consider trying to sell the appliances, fixtures, carriage lights on either side of the garage door, or recycle the windows and doors, or pricey items that add to the cost of a home? Isn’t it ironic that while people are losing their homes and are unable to pay their bills, while the country faces an economic downturn that the State of Illinois simply knocks down perfectly good houses?

It seems as though with every new year comes a resurgence in the waste of Illinois officials who are unable to balance their own budget in a timely manner, unwilling to do the people’s business, except for spending, and are totally incapable of anything that resembles accountability.

IDOT recent action is scandalous

What an incredible waste! 

 Take a look at what the 

Illinois Dept. of Transportation did 

to this lovely country home. 

Read on!
Still affected by IDOT behavior