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.