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.