Good morning, Carpentersville!
It’s Cinco de Mayo!
Hope everyone had a good weekend. Saturday’s weather was no fun, but Sunday shaped up to be a beautiful day.
Today is expected to be another nice day; sunny, with temps expected to reach into the low 70s.
If you haven’t been paying attention, the Chicago Cubs lead baseball in most runs, batting average and on-base percentage. The last time they led in on-base percentage was in 1945 when the Cubs last appeared in the World Series. It is only May 5, and it is the Cubs. They lost last night to the first place St. Louis Cardinals, 5 to 3. Stay tuned.
In Carpentersville news this weekend, the Daily Herald had two articles on what’s been going on involving the Trustee position of convicted-domestic-abuser, Paul Humpfer. The first is an editorial of the Herald which — once again — directs criticism toward Mayor Bill Sarto for his involvement in trying to enforce the law.
Sarto seems clearly frustrated, and with good reason. Judy Sigwalt and Paul Humpfer have been part of a series of incidents that have ranged from improper, to full-fledged violations of the law. (I’ve written about this in the past, specifically in the 6-part series “The Trouble with Carpentersville” which you can find in the “Highlights” page linked above, but I’ll provide more on this shortly.) Thus far, they have been allowed to persist in this type of behavior with seeming impunity.
If not for Sarto making all the noise about this, such unacceptable actions from our elected officials would go unknown, at the expense of the residents of the Village. More on that later too.
I may not agree with all of Sarto’s methods, but I do appreciate his tenacity for trying to ensure that those in government do not get away with improper and illegal behaviors.
The second article from the Daily Herald comes from columnist, Amy Mack. Like the first, it seems mostly intended to appeal to ones emotions. Unlike the first, though, it does a better job of capturing the essence of what people like myself are concerned about in this case.
Unfortunately, one sentence taints the article, and in a comment on the Daily Herald website, I talk about that sentence …
A main point that I would take exception to is that it is legal for Paul Humpfer to retain his seat. According to two memos from the Village Attorney, Humpfer committed an infamous crime and is no longer eligible to hold public office.
He quotes Illinois case law that points to the “facts of the case” being criteria for determining whether a crime is “infamous”. The facts of the case have found that Humpfer committed felony aggravated assault. If one is guilty of a felony he is ineligible to hold public office. “Infamous crimes may also be misdemeanors”, the Attorney wrote, if they “violate commonly held standards of honesty, decency and moral turpitude”. If one is guilty of “an infamous crime”, he is ineligible to hold public office.
The memos go on to provide information on how the vacancy would then be filled, adding to the opinion that the law considers Humpfer’s seat vacant.
Ms. Mack is correct about past disagreements on the issues between factions; but there are such political rivalries at every level of government across the land.
It shouldn’t be used as a basis or cover for not doing what is right according to the laws of State, and common sense and decency.
Ms. Mack talks about some sort of “political gain” that Sarto is supposed to be trying to get, but I have to question that motive. What is there to be gained? All I see that might possibly be gained is that people will once again have a government that is open and honest about the business they conduct for the people they serve.
Next, the Courier-News has a Speak-Out and a letter to the editor in today’s edition. The Speak-Out says that Sarto should “leave poor Paul Humpfer alone”. The comment likely comes from one of those in the little illegal immigration clique that controls the government. Perhaps the caller thinks that we all should ignore everyone who is found guilty of attacking his wife with a baseball bat….
Then, there is the letter from Jonathan Radke … another member of the “clique”. “The other” Radke is Chairman of Fox Valley Citizens for Legal Immigration. The letter, just like the Speak-Out, says that the Board should put a stop to Sarto’s actions. Why? Because Sarto is not allowing convicted-woman-basher, Paul Humpfer to get away with breaking the law, both in his personal life and in his public life?!
This is the same way they went about their campaign on illegal immigration, folks. They write letters, call-in Speak-Outs, and make comments at Village Board meetings … all to interfere with, and manipulate Village business. They manipulate — and apparently dupe — the press.
And, finally, there is one little tidbit of info I’ve got for those faithful readers who have hung on to this point. There is yet another little twist to this tale …
On his blog, and on some of the newspaper sites, former Village Trustee candidate Frank Stoneham, stated he is filing a quo warranto with the State’s Attorney against Mayor Sarto, in relation to the letter Sarto sent on April 22, 2008 declaring Paul Humpfer’s seat vacant.
For Mr. Stoneham this might not even require a stamp for postage. He might simply be able to hand it to the State’s prosecutor across the aisle from his defendant’s chair.
On April 23, Mr. Stoneham was in court for a hearing related to alleged violations of conditions of his release. The findings of that hearing were delivered to Judge Susan Clancy-Boles, presiding over a follow-up hearing on May 1, 2008.
This all stems from a sentence handed down in September 2007. Mr. Stoneham was given probation, ordered to attend anger management classes, not allowed to make public comments at Village Board meetings for 1 year, and to sit alone and not have contact with anyone at those Board meetings he chose to attend. The sentence was handed down when Judge Clancy-Boles found Stoneham guilty of assault of resident Paul Calusinski in one case, and disorderly conduct on a separate date, during a Board meeting.
At Village Board meetings, Stoneham has regularly been seen having contact with others, and on at least one occasion was seen distributing flyers promoting his website, with derogatory commentary against Paul Calusinski, President Sarto and Trustee Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski.
In court on Thursday, Stoneham was ordered to undergo 26 weeks of anger management classes (cost: $100 each class), was again cautioned to refrain from having contact with anyone at the Board meetings, and warned not to make any further derogatory comments on websites or elsewhere about Calusinski or Sarto (which may be an indication of what the Judge might think of Mr. Stoneham’s false statements about perjury — which reportedly were called baseless — on the part of the State’s witnesses, Paul Calusinski and Mayor Sarto.)
So, a rather long, but hopefully worthwhile wrap-up of weekend Carpentersville information.
12 comments
May 5, 2008 at 12:08 pm
carpentersville2
Chrysippus, Frank Stoneham was “found innocent” on April 23 of the new charges that were brought up by Bill Sarto and Paul Calusinski. these charges stem from the November 20, 2007 Village Board meeting.
Judge Alan W. Cargerman who presided over the April 23, 2008 on these new charges, did not find either Carpentersville President Bill Sarto and Paul Calusinski’s testimony as credible. Both Mr. Sarto and Mr. Calusinski’s testimony, during cross-examination by Frank Stoneham, changed their stories while being questioned.
Of course, Mr. Sarto will continue his witch hunt of his political enemies.
For your information, Frank Stoneham has already hand-delivered the “quo warranto” against Village President Bill Sarto and has been officially filed in Kane County State Attorney’s office last week.
May 5, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Chrysippus
The charges against Mr. Stoneham were brought by the State’s Attorney’s office.
I believe Judge Cargerman stated that he was going to allow Judge Clancy-Boles to provide the ruling, which she did at the May 1 hearing. According to statements, Judge Clancy-Boles specifically stated that Stoneham was not “found innocent”, and accepted the recommendation of Judge Cargerman that he be ordered to undergo anger management — which resulted in a new order of a 26-week program.
Further, the Judge restated and reinforced her early conditions, as was stated above.
Interesting question, that your comment raises … Why was Stoneham doing the “cross-examination”? Did it have anything to do with his lawyer quitting after reporting to the Judge that Stoneham assaulted him at the attorneys office?
It’s funny how you and Sigwalt and others continue to use this term “witch hunt”. Once one is found guilty of the crimes they committed, it can’t be categorized as a “witch hunt”. It is called criminal justice.
Of course, you guys know “witch hunt” pretty well, as you have been going after Sarto for 3 years now. And each and every time you guys end up being told that no laws have been broken. Then the Board goes off and tries to create some new, frivolous law that ends up being dropped because it would be unconstitutional and unenforceable.
I think you guys are just upset that you are no longer being allowed to get away with your crimes.
May 5, 2008 at 2:07 pm
At a Glance
Unfortunately Chrysippus, they are “getting away with their crimes”. They still hold the majority on the board. They still have their illegal meetings. They control the agenda and let Humpher stay on the Board to show the world how “low class” Carpentersville is. They still disrupt the Board Meetings.
Only Bill Sarto points out the issues and then they just attack him that much more. It is the same ploy that the Bush Administratation has made an art form. When anyone raises questions, they attack the person asking the questions and never respond with an answer. That is what they are doing with Humpher’s conviction of beating a woman with a baseball bat. That is what they are doing with the illegal meetings. That is what they are doing with the disruption to Village business.
They attack Sarto because they can’t answer the questions without showing their guilt or support for indecency and immorality. Sorry to say, they are getting away with it, but like Bush and those around him, (with his record 71% disapproval rating) they too will lose because the people are not as stupid as they think. There is a day of reconing ahead, for all those that are involved.
May 5, 2008 at 2:58 pm
carpentersville2
Here, I’ll make it simple for you Chrysippus.
Here’s the ruling on April 23, 2008 from Judge Cargerman
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition to Revoke Conditional Discharge filed November 21, 2007, as to defendant’s prior conviction for disorderly conduct, be and is hereby denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Revoke Supervision filed December 28, 2007, as to defendant’s prior disposition for assault, be and is hereby denied.
ENTERED: April 29, 2008.
Alan W. Cargerman, Associate Judge
As you can see it wasn’t Judge Boles who made that decision.
You really need to find some new sources, before you post those lies. Just like when you posted, that Mr. Stoneham missed a couple of Court dates back in December 2007 and January 2008. You see Chrysippus, if Mr. Stoneham missed those Court dates, you can bet that Mr. Sarto and Mr. Calusinski would of had the Carpentersville Police over at his house with warrants in hand.
Nothing like malicious and slanderous comments, that could open you up for a lawsuit. Again, this has to be expected from someone who operates under the shadow of anonymity.
May 5, 2008 at 3:32 pm
At a Glance
I’d like to point something out to Carpentersville2 – No one is ever found “innocent”. They are technically found not not guilty. Innocent and not guilty are two distinctly different things.
And, it appears that there are two different verdicts being referred to in the comments above. Each comes on different dates and from different judges – so what is the actual results of the hearings. Seems to me that if the original issues were not dropped, then there has been evidence that Mr. Stoneham has infact broken the law and is being disciplined for his behavior. To me that is the bottom line…No one has said that Stoneham was not guilty of illegal behavoir as evidenced by his continued, ongoing punishment.
What amazes me is that there are people like yourself that continue to support those that break the law and then attack others that ask for them to stop the disruption to government. Why? Is beating a woman with a baseball bat or threatening and disruptive behavior at Board Meetings what you find to be acceptable behavior? You do a disservice to the community and yourself for supporting them.
May 5, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Chrysippus
Look, Mr. Stoneham, I’m not going to play these silly little games.
Folks can contact the prosecutor from the State’s Attorney’s office if they want additional information, and I’m quite confident that my information will be corroborated.
May 5, 2008 at 5:09 pm
At a Glance
Chrysippus, I have a question related to the Letter of Opinion that Atty Rhodes has provided the Board and President Sarto.
In his letter he says: “Finally, it is my recommendation that the President and Board of Trustees consider this vacancy issue and make a determination whether or not facts exist that would cause a vacancy to exist…. While the decision of the Board is not conclusive and a quo warranto action might still be prosecuted, a Village Board determination should eliminate further disruptions and will allow village matters to proceed”.
What happens if the Board fails to take any action?
Based on this, it is still unclear as to what remedies are available to the people of the Village if the Board does not follow the recommendation of the Village Attorney. It sounds like citizens of the Village or the State’s Attorney or Attorney General may take legal steps to have the case determined in court. While it appears to be the responsiblity of the Board to make this decision, and the lack of action may cause additional disruption to the Village business, could legal action also be taken against the Trustees for not doing their duty as designated by Atty Rhodes? Could they all be removed for conspiracy in their avoidence of their responsibility and neglect to follow the law, for which they swore to uphold in their oath of office?
May 5, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Peter Piper
One small step at a time…………….
“directs criticism toward Mayor Bill Sarto for his involvement in trying to enforce the law”
Correct, he is wasting rescources of the village and it’s staff, while trying to act as Policeman, District Attorney, Judge and Jury. He is the Mayor and he should stay on course for the Village’s sake, instead he advises his handpicked A&F committee via e-mail what they are supposed to do. As if they did not have free choice in the matter.
“Judy Sigwalt and Paul Humpfer have been part of a series of incidents that have ranged from improper, to full-fledged violations of the law.”
Mr. Sarto is trying to circumvent the Kane County and their handling of the case against Humpfer, although not violations, the actions are very annoying since he refuses to understand he is Mayor of Carpentersville and not a County or court offical. Beside’s, his right and left hand henchmen are doing the legwork are were involved with histories of abuse and felony behavior.
“I may not agree with all of Sarto’s methods”
That probably is as close as we will ever get, I have yet to see any of his actions (available on Youtube) that any sane person would qualify as that of a stable and consistant individual.
“Ms. Mack talks about some sort of “political gain” that Sarto is supposed to be trying to get, but I have to question that motive. What is there to be gained?”
You have to be kidding! To remove an opponete in a political arena is something to be “gained”, it shows power, it shows skill, it shows manvouveing, it may lead to bigger things! Maybe for Bill that would be garbage collector.
“They manipulate — and apparently dupe — the press.”
Ah, yes, the stupid paper! Unless they just happen to agree with you, then you smile all the way to the bank. How dare they bring up facts and points of view, how dare they use the freedom of the press to explain things without TOTALLY staying on one side of the line, as the people of CAN do. Even I have said if the courts deny Humpfer’s appeal and he is not granted another one and in fact is sentenced, then and only then will I say that we have got to the end of the line.
However, you and the Mayor wanted the end of the line three years ago, you did not even want Humpfer on the board. Neither did Tommy from OTTO, spending a considerable amount of money to thwart Humpfer and Sigwalt. He is a individual that has nothing but money to burn and wants to control everything around him. Like Sarto! Roeser and his organisations have been fined considerable monies because of not following the election laws in the state of Illinois.
I find it interesting that you have all the latest from Stoneham’s court meetings. Is it possible you are there? Or are you relying on someone else to carefully document everything to a “T” or are you using hearsay?
Now I turn to “At a Glance” which I would assume means that he/she does read everything carefully. Atty Rhodes has at best been close to being on both side of the issue at the same time. Since it is a very complex undertaking and you want a Microwave answer, you might be saddened to find out you might not see an end for quite some time.
I also noticed that you want to drag President Bush into the commentary.
WHY? That is exactly the kind of behavior on all the blog’s around the country! No matter what happens, woman breaks a nail going to Wal-Mart and sues, some moron says it is Bush’s fault. Get a life, we have the Senate and the House screwing things up too and you probably never use their names. On the other hand, if you are putting Mr. Humpfer right up there with the President of the United States there could be hope for you.
Or not.
Back to Syphilis:
“Look, Mr. Stoneham, I’m not going to play these silly little games.”
HA! You started it and now you don’t want to play “silly little games?” Pick up your marbles and run home! Take Sarto with you, you can use him for a “dummy” hand in Gin.
Just a few of my thoughts! Frank! hehhehe lol
May 6, 2008 at 10:18 am
Chrysippus
he is wasting resources of the village and it’s staff, while trying to act as Policeman, District Attorney, Judge and Jury.
He has a sworn duty to see that the laws of the country, state, county and village are faithfully enforced. But, who’s really responsible for “wasting resources”. Everyone knows that Humpfer is gone according to the law, yet Sigwalt and Co continue to waste everyone’s time (and money!) by trying to prevent the inevitable.
although not violations, [Sarto's] actions are very annoying
Yeah … actions to enforce the law are usually annoying to lawbreakers.
he refuses to understand he is Mayor of Carpentersville and not a County or court offical.
The Court has ruled. Humpfer is guilty. The Village Attorney and the State’s Attorney have given the Board first opportunity to do what is right … and yet they are refusing to take the opportunity they’ve been given. Will they allow themselves to be shown up by the State’s Attorney or a Court?
I have yet to see any of his actions (available on Youtube) that any sane person would qualify as that of a stable and consistant individual.
You’re probably right … anyone who expects laws to be enforced properly in Carpentersville must be insane.
How dare they bring up facts and points of view, how dare they use the freedom of the press to explain things without TOTALLY staying on one side of the line
The media has taken a side and everyone can see it. They are no more objective in their reporting than anyone on either side of this issue. At times they have actually ignored facts to present their own biased reporting of the story.
I find it interesting that you have all the latest from Stoneham’s court meetings.
Contact the Prosecutor for the State’s Attorney’s office.
May 6, 2008 at 11:17 am
Starry Eyes
Maybe it’s time to start an on-line petition that Carpentersville residents can “sign.” The petition question does not have to be whether or not they want Humpfer out. Rather, it would be a question of demanding that the Board act on the matter.
Signers would have to include their home address with their signature to prove that they are indeed Carpentersville residents. But that information can be for verification purposes only and would not have to be disclosed on-line.
The purpose of such a petition would be to show the trustees that the citizens of Carpentersville expect them to act on this matter, one way or another.
This can then be a valid point of consideration when their time comes to run for re-election.
Just a suggestion.
S.E.
May 6, 2008 at 12:39 pm
james
Sounds great – Starry!
This way, if you think the board members should not allow people convicted of domestic abuse retain a board seat, or if you believe that Humpher has the right to retain his seat and this is all a witch hunt, then you will have the ability to see what board members do what.
May 6, 2008 at 2:33 pm
At a Glance
Peter, Peter, I thought I had given you some slack for your mental handicap but I guess you don’t know enough to let things alone. For my comment about Bush, yes, the entire republican party is to blame for following his illegal and treasonous escapades that have cost trilloins of our kids tax dollars, and hundreds of thousands lives. The Senate Republicans philibuster any programs the Democrats try to put in place that would make some reaonable imporvements to our world, like stopping illegal immigration. But they don’t want that. They want their rich business buddies to have the chance to have cheap labor here in the US, when they can’t export the jobs to China or some other foreign country. Seems they can’t find a way to have laborers do things like build houses in China and bring them here to live in so they bring in the cheap labor. There are jobs that can’t be done in other countries where they can hav eth echaeap workers do it for pennies instead of paying the American workers a decant wage. They bring in the cheap labor for our businesses to use to cut costs. Think of the Bush proposal for th guest workers. Why would we need them unless they would work under poor conditions, for less money than our US workers do. And you think Bush is good and Humpher is like him. Maybe that’s so. And I think Bush should be imprisoned for war crimes and treason against this country so you decide if Humpher is that bad. I didn’t equate him with that but you seem to want to.
And then there is the monitary policy that continues to shrink the dollar. You probably say that is great for our exports like Bush does. But when we only export 12% of our goods, and import more than 80% of the products we consume, including Oil, the shrinking dollar is not in our favor. It is these policies and the ones that they use to cause fear and expand misinformation that I’m also concerned about. Ask Bush a tough question, like what was going on in your secret energy sessions under Cheney and you will get only attacks on your patriotism or how stupid you are. Ask him what he knew about the lies he told about yellowcake from Niger. YOu will get what they always give. Just attacking the people and never answering the questions. That is rule one, it would seem, with the Republicans – never answer questions, but attack the questioner.
With Humpher, the Board is doing the same thing. They are not addressing the people’s questions or concerns but instead, attacking Sarto for asking them.
Is there something worng with finding out if criminal behavior warrants the removal of the convicted criminal from the Board? That is what Sarto has done. He has asked for information and when he received it, he acted on it. That is the type of person I want to be leading this community. But instead we have lowlife scum that have sexual relationships between families of our Board members and we as citizens don’t have the right, or even the duty to find out what kind of “things” we have trying to tell us how to live our lives, to plan the future for our community? I’m sorry but this behavior and your stupidity do not represent me or the views of the community where I want to raise my family. To support this is to me even more criminal than the action of beating a woman with a baseball bat. That could have happened, while unexcusable, in the momentary reaction to the situation. To support this, after the fact, is justifying this type of behavior, and that is absolutely wrong.