You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘lawsuit’ tag.
I’d mentioned in my last posting that the team of “Ritter, Teeter, Schultz and McFeggan” were the team of empty promises. There are several good reasons why I say this, and why I think that voters need to take a pass on what Judy Sigwalt referred to as the “Carpentersville Cares” team, in her endorsement of these candidates.
The “Cares” team is part of a group that made promises before the 2007 election — and held this Village hostage with their antics, some of which violated local and state ordinances/statutes — only to break those promises after they were back in office.
Today, I’ll remind voters of what was promised before the 2007 election, and what happened after the election.
You likely recall that the team of Sigwalt, <a href=”Humpfer and Hinz dubbed themselves “The All-American Team”. They promised to take on illegal immigrants in the Village of Carpentersville. But, their campaign really started in September 2006, when they began to talk about unpaid ambulance bills and their opinion that those unpaid bills were due to illegal Hispanic immigrants.
When Sigwalt and Humpfer tried to bring an ordinance forward, President Bill Sarto immediately cautioned that passage of such an ordinance would result in a lawsuit.
This was proven out by the fact that other communities trying to pass similar ordinances were being sued. Some, like Hazelton, PA, which the proposed Carpentersville ordinance was modeled after, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight the suit.
Still, knowing the strong likelihood of the Village being sued if they passed this ordinance, Sigwalt and Humpfer continued. They met with a small group of residents and non-residents, and even other members of the Board and committees, in an attempt to press on. They even violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act (and prompted a letter of caution from the Illinois Attorney General’s office), and engaged in misappropriation of Village property.
For months they dismissed any concern of the Village being sued, and even said they’d gladly fight a lawsuit when it came.
Clearly they didn’t care about the jeopardy they were putting Village in, nor did they care about the people of Carpentersville. They continued to promise the voters that, if they voted for them, they would pass this ordinance, without mentioning any possibility of lawsuit — even though they were certainly aware of it.
Only when they had won re-election did they finally shut up about illegal immigration. At three separate meetings, they were given an opportunity to discuss it, and they refused.
They abandoned the voters to whom they had promised the illegal immigration ordinance. Their only care had obviously been “four more years” in office.
They now say that they don’t want the Village to get sued, but for those 6 months leading to the election, they accepted the threat of a lawsuit — even welcomed the challenge. Because of the months of their discriminatory talk and divisiveness, the Village has been sued — over failure to put a Hispanic child in an ambulance and transport him to the hospital, when they were saying that unpaid ambulance fees were a result of illegal Hispanic immigrants.
This was something that President Sarto warned about from the very moment the “All American Team” raised it. But, the “All American Team” had an election to win. Once they won, however, they abandoned it …
… just as Ed Ritter, Kay Teeter, Patricia “Pat” Schultz and Brad McFeggan will break any promises they make in this election.
You know what they say, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Next up, I’ll talk about the “respect” they are now boasting about in their campaign.
Last week the Daily Herald published an editorial related to a libel lawsuit filed by a court reporting firm against a court reporter who started a blog to complain about not being paid by the firm. The specific facts of that case will apparently be worked out in court, but I think there are a few things worth commenting on from the editorial, for the sake of some education.
The editorial begins:
Those in the “old” media, more than a little familiar with the intricacies of libel and slander law, knew it was bound to happen. A blogger has been sued for libel in Kane County’s 16th Circuit Court.
Perhaps this is a first in Kane County, but its nothing new nationwide. Bloggers have been sued, or threatened with suit, many times before. Only an extremely small number have worked or won.
Despite the apparent belief that those using the Internet can say anything without consequence, those with more experience knew individuals would tolerate the besmirching of their names and reputations for only so long before putting up a fight.
A large number of cases filed against bloggers typically have the goal of silencing their critics; of abridging First Amendment rights. And courts have regularly sided with bloggers in these cases.
While it is true that those who feel that they can say anything on the Internet are wrong, there seems to be a great amount of levity given to those who speak their opinion, and whether the target of criticism is a public or private person. This goes for “old media” as well as “new media” such as blogs. (In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that “in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities.”)
Political speech is given the most leeway, so as to not suppress freedom of expression. That does not mean that someone can spread something that is “verifiably false”, such as saying that someone is guilty of a crime when they are not. But, an example from a real case will give some info as to how much can be tolerated:
A statement that the plaintiff is a “Dumb Ass,” even first among “Dumb Asses,” communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that “dumb” by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning “lacking in intelligence.” Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use “dumb” in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, “dumb ass.” When applied to a whole human being, the term “ass” is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word “dumb” merely converts “contemptible person” to “contemptible fool.” Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. … If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.
This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs’ names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. http://www.satan.com), noting “merely linking a plaintiff’s name to the word “satan” conveys nothing more than the author’s opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff.”
So, what was my “take away” from the editorial? That folks like me were being given a little bit of “notice” to watch it.
But, I write about public figures, backing up my conclusions with as much information as a reasonable person would expect to detail. A lawsuit filed against this blog would require the plaintiff to prove “actual malice”, meaning that a “verifiable fact” was posted that was reasonably considered to be untrue. Most legal opinions consulted have noted that is something difficult for a plaintiff to prove. Still, I make every attempt to provide legitimate reason for the opinions I hold and express on this blog.
Something else interesting to consider is anonymity. Cases have been brought in order to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the First Amendment right to speak anonymously: “author is generally free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be…the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm)
Procedures and motions are often filed to allow anonymous bloggers to remain anonymous until the lawsuit is decided, or a summary judgment is entered that considers the likelihood that the case will result in a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Yes, bloggers need to be responsible and understand the law and their boundaries. But, bloggers also need to know their rights, and SLAPP lawsuits used to scare away criticism are often dealt with collectively in the blogosphere, having even caused those who brought the suits to drop them.
On Thursday, November 1st, a new law approved in May went into effect in Oklahoma: Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 [HB 1804 text, Microsoft Word Document] A lawsuit has been filed to overturn the law. A hearing on the case is scheduled to begin this week. An emergency injunction filed to prevent the law from being enforced was tossed out last week.
The news reports about the law are somewhat misleading, because they infer that it creates a primary enforcement directive. In other words, that illegal immigrants will be specifically targeted by the act, and police will be responding to reports of suspected illegal immigrant presence.
However, law enforcement is saying it won’t really change anything they are currently doing.
Are they planning to ignore the law? Not at all. But, they say, people don’t seem to understand what the new law means and what resources law enforcement agencies have available to them.
“We’re not rounding people up,” [Capt Dean] Grassino [of Enid, OK] said. “We’ll cooperate. If they do an immigration enforcement action, we’ll assist. But we’re not going to send officers out to businesses to check workers’ papers and stuff. That’s stuff we’re not going to do.”
And, this is where things appear to differ from what has been proposed in Carpentersville. (Although, there is a disparity in comparison, too, because States have greater jurisdiction in these matters than do municipalities.)
While there are items in the law that appear to be problematic, because they may violate due process rights afforded to all citizens and guests of the United States or do not provide adequate protections of those and related rights, a majority of the sections of the new law are directed at existing processes, and may well be upheld.
For example, providing clearer criteria for the issuance — and acceptance — of official identification for obtaining public benefits and services seems quite within the jurisdiction of the state, without interference in federal statues. Additionally, in cases of arrest for certain crimes (read: felonies or DUI), “reasonable” effort must be made to determine whether the suspect is a U.S. citizen or resident alien, using the “Status Verification System” (something which the State of Illinois banned the use of). Some of these seem to be be the kind of things that Sheriff Daniel Beck of Allen County, Ohio has employed in his efforts.
Still, some of the sections could end up being rejected, such as those that would penalize citizens, landlords and business owners who might transport, house or employ undocumented immigrants.
The outcome of this case will be another one that we should watch.
Yet, for all the things that appear to be beneficial in the protections of U.S. citizens and taxpayers, there are still fundamental flaws that must be addressed. Today on Tennessean.com, an “Our View” touches on several of the issues that must be considered by a “hodgepodge” approach to immigration reform and enforcement.
Thus, while no one may like the way Congress has handled immigration legislation so far, it is still the province of the U.S. House and Senate, and the reason for this is deceptively simple: questions involving individuals from outside the borders of the United States should be treated equally and even-handedly. This cannot be achieved by 50 or more separate authorities, but by one federal authority.
Smaller jurisdictions’ end runs around Congress only complicate the problem of illegal immigration for the future.
Perhaps, though, worthy efforts will be take up to the federal level and implemented uniformly. But, deportations will not matter one lick without adequate border security, and some of these efforts will have a further detrimental effect on an economy that seems to be headed toward depression.
Trustee Sigwalt is at it again, continuing to publicly throw negative jabs at President Sarto. This time it is simply because he would like the Board to have more information from lawyers for the Village’s insurance carrier about ordinances presently being considered for passage in the Village, particularly in the wake of a $30 million lawsuit recently filed against the Village.
“I don’t believe we have to consult with IRMA” over the impounding proposal, Trustee Judith Sigwalt said. “Other communities have done this successfully. President Sarto just likes to make everything difficult. He tries to make more out of them than they are.”
Apparently, she already knows it all.
Or does she? Folks may recall a few months ago when the Village was considering an English-only ordinance. Sigwalt, and political ally Trustee Paul Humpfer, did not take the time to determine what kind of difficulties such an ordinance would place on staff’s ability to do their jobs and comply with state and federal regulations. Only after heads of the major Village departments stepped up to provide information that would have otherwise not been considered did Sigwalt and Humpfer relent to accepting a non-binding resolution.
In this case, some “other communities” have gotten sued when attempting to expand the situations in which vehicles would be towed. In light of that, meeting with IRMA lawyers seems like a very good idea.
“It’s prudent for us to hold off on this until we at least talk to our attorneys on what we should or should not do at this point,” Sarto said. “To stir that pot anymore would be foolish.”
Trustee Sigwalt, along with the rest of the Board, needs to take more time to gather information — like they do in other, more professional, municipalities — and ensure that that information is shared with the Board and residents to enable better, more informed decisions. It is also rushing into things without all the information and available alternatives that has put the Village at risk in the lawsuit.
On a related note, there are those who have taken issue with my criticism of Trustee Sigwalt (and Trustee Humpfer). In response, I asked them to defend the actions of these two trustees in those situations of which I’ve been critical, and provide examples of the positive effects those actions had on the community. To date, no defense or examples have been provided.
In the end, I believe the actions of Trustee Sigwalt over the past 8 years necessitates this information be pointed out to residents in order that the Village can rise above the problems that have resulted. These actions and negativity have actually held the Village back in periods when other, smaller towns have worked successfully to prosper.
Yep … they’re still at it folks.
In light of the lawsuit, President Sarto directed staff to postpone work on a draft of a controversial ordinance viewed by many across the US as targeting immigrants. And, Sarto also said he would hold off on appointments to the “Improvement Committee”, which has also been seen in the community as focusing on one segment of the population.
Trustee’s Paul Humpfer and Judy Sigwalt didn’t like the action.
He is a village president, not a king. said Humpfer.
However, Sarto is the Chief Executive Officer of the Village. Per the Carpentersville Municipal Code:
The president shall be and shall have the powers and perform the duties of chief executive officer of the village, shall preside at all meetings of the board, and shall devote to the responsibilities of his or her office such time and endeavor as the faithful discharge thereof may require.
As such, he is not simply another member of the Board, or having merely the powers of Trustees.
That said, I believe it is a good idea to postpone the work and enactment of the ordinance and committee, particularly in light of the lawsuit that has been filed. While it would have been better for Sarto to bring this first to the Board if he did not mention to them that they remove it from the agenda, I believe it is the right and prudent to take this action.
However, even in absence of this being brought to the whole Board first, the Board should not vote to proceed with these things as a matter of political spite. No matter what we eventually learn of the facts of the lawsuit, the present situation in Carpentersville is demonstrative of bigotry and bias.
Leaders in this community are those that recognize that fact and stand up to to speak out and do something about it.
But, there are others simply come up with slogans and rhetoric to tell the people that they shouldn’t feel what they are feeling. Those are not leaders.
What have these trustees done to bridge the divide that exists in Carpentersville? People in the community feel targeted. What have they done to reach out to those people and put them at ease?
In September/October 2006, they came up with an ordinance that worried a lot of people.
What did they do to reassure those people? Said, “It’s not about race. It’s about what’s legal”. (Making attempts to change the law.) And, the told them they needed to learn English; which worried them — even those that spoke English — more.
And, what did they do to reassure them, then? Told them they were going to come gunning for “code violators”. Which made them and others — even those who kept their property looking pretty good — feel more worried.
And, what did they do to reassure them, then? They said “watch out! We’re going to modify the laws to come for your vehicles!”
They haven’t done one thing to try to ease people’s minds about what they are doing. Telling someone “It’s not about race” when there are impressions (real or not) of a pattern that it is about race, hasn’t done anything to put the community at ease.
Now, with a lawsuit pending that is zeroing in on that pattern, the Board shouldn’t forge ahead like cowboys trying to tame the wild west. They need to step back, save the town from bankruptcy and heal the wounds that people have in the community.
Normally, a story like this one wouldn’t be one that I’d think about posting on this blog, because it wouldn’t have any relevance to Carpentersville. However, the pending lawsuit against the Village may give it some relevance.
A jury awarded a 13-year-old Chicago boy $19 million on Monday for severe brain injuries he suffered when a television fell on his head during class at his Catholic school.
While the circumstances surrounding what happened are admittedly different, the case may be indicative of the case of Osbiel Lopez.
In this case, the then-9-year-old boy, tugged on a television bolted to a stand which then toppled down and struck him on the head, causing permanent brain injury.
The archdiocese sought settlement in the case.
“It was an accident, so we did admit the liability,” said Susan Burritt. “Basically, the Archdiocese has been primarily concerned for the future of the young person involved.”
Some people have asked … “why didn’t the caregiver simply take the child to the hospital?”
In my view, this is beside the point. She called 9-1-1 for help. Perhaps she didn’t have a car. Or maybe she didn’t have a license or insurance.
Others have said the mother was at fault for leaving the child with someone who did not speak English. But, what if you had “that nice Polish lady” cleaning your house, who couldn’t speak English and an attic fire was detected while she was cleaning and she called 9-1-1, but couldn’t communicate with the operator? Would you be to blame for having hired someone to clean your home who couldn’t speak English?
Still others have said that this occurred before the illegal immigration ordinance was introduced. While true, the contention is that the ordinance was already being talked about and introduced only about a week after this incident. For the ordinance to be introduced, would have required things being in motion before that. It is those things that I believe the Plaintiffs will contend contributed to the negligence, because they may have been directed to limit those situations where Hispanics, or even just those who’s residency status could not be established, were transported.
By the way … if there are any derogatory comments posted containing things like “anchor baby”, etc … I’m going to delete them completely without hesitation. Such language is indicative of the kind of atmosphere/environment which this lawsuit contends exists in Carpentersville. I won’t tolerate it.
Commentary on:
- the complaint against the Village of Carpentersville
- a Letter to the Editor appearing in the Daily Herald, responding to letters written in reference to one submitted by Village President Sarto
And, I’m looking for a “What’s your view?” topic. If anyone has any thoughts, please feel free to email me.
Stay tuned to Carpentersville Action Network for news, information and commentary on happenings in the Village of Carpentersville.
Carpentersville Action Network 
Recent Comments