Seipler v. Nygren - enter Mark Gummerson?

Just got a call from a reader who asked me if I had read Cal Skinner's article yet on McHenry County Blog - about Nygren and Mark Gummerson. No, I haven't. I now know it's there, and I am going to read it, for sure. But first I'm going to write my own article.

Of course, I read the Northwest Herald article this morning, which let Sheriff Keith Nygren whine at the top of Page 1. I still get a print edition at home every morning, just so I can have fun with the scissors and slice out all the fodder for the day's grist mill.

Early this afternoon I was at the courthouse, where I read (some of) the petition that was filed by R. Mark Gummerson in 10MR000011, which is the case by Zane Seipler in which Zane asks for a special prosecutor to investigate Nygren.

The ten-page petition, which would take a Philadelphia lawyer a week to understand and will probably take Judge Meyer a year on which to rule, lays out, in high-falutin' terms (all legalese, of course)), why Attorney William Caldwell cannot be appointed to represent Nygren. Not "should not". Not "could not". Why he CAN not be appointed.

How many months will it take to argue that Motion, which will probably have to be cleared away before Zane's request can be ruled on?

Zane's legal action names Nygren, in his official capacity and personally. In yesterday's petition Nygren asks for Gummerson to be appointed to defend him "in his official capacity.".

OK, folks. Mind those four little words carefully - "in his official capacity". Then start putting a whole lot of dollar signs behind them. If Nygren ran off to Gummerson's office (or, more likely, told Gummerson to hot-foot it over to 2200 N. Seminary Ave.) to get the ball rolling on the petition that was filed yesterday, don't you just have to wonder what the legal fee was for that? There's the start-up time, the research time, the drafting time, the time in the office for 2-3 lawyers to "confer". Yesterday's peition was not of the "off the shelf" variety. I'll bet the fee just for the petition was $5,-10,000. And from what fund will that be paid? The McHenry County Sheriff's Department's budget. That's my guess, anyway.

I laughed out loud at Paragraph 10. "It is not in the best interests of the County of McHenry for the Court to grant (Seipler's) petition" for a special prosecutor.

Well, duh... of course, it's not in the best interests of McHenry County. Just imagine what could come to light.

On the contrary! The "County of McHenry" is the People, not Sheriff Keith Nygren. It's the People, Keith. The people whom you swore to serve and protect. Those people, Keith. Us!!!

So, yes, it is in our best interests for a special prosecutor to investigate Sheriff Keith Nygren, in his official capacity and personally.

Is Nygren trying to run out the clock? Stall, stall, stall? With Undersheriff Andy Zinke's having announced an election campaign for THREE years from now (2014!!!), should we expect Nygren to bail sooner, so that his hand-picked successor can slide right in?

Let's hope that Judge Meyer rules immediately that he will not appoint Mark Gummerson as Nygren's attorney. If Keith wants to hire him at his personal expense, fine.

But isn't there a strong conflict-of-interest? Gummerson is known as a defense attorney. He's in the courthouse every day, fighting tickets issued to his clients by McHenry County Sheriff's deputies. Doesn't this put him on the other side of the "fence"?

Sure, they can both belong to the Republican Party. They can hobnob socially and smile and be friendly. But in legal matters, doesn't Gummerson's role as a defense attorney preclude his representing Nygren in any case. Might Gummerson be able to learn insider information that could help him (unfairly) to win a case in court? Just thinkin' ...

Arrest - a chilling effect?

Woodstock attorney Mark Gummerson is quoted in the Northwest Herald as having said, "I don't think the court can underestimate the chilling impact of being arrested." Somebody pass me a barf bag!

Supposedly he said that to Judge Mahoney in Federal District Court in Rockford. Gummerson is representing an Algonquin attorney who is charged with trying to hire a hitman (several of them) to kill his girlfriend's ex-boyfriend.

Oh, my oh my. I am so sorry for poor Jason Smiekel. Somebody get him a blankie to warm him up.

Pitiful!!!

Just what was it that the boyfriend was going to spill to the ARDC?

Let's hope the prosecution stands tall for something a whole lot stronger than "home incarceration." How about $5,000,000  bail? Or maybe $10,000,000?

Murder-for-hire plot revealed by Carolyn Cox

In her civil case filed this week in McHenry County Circuit Court, Carolyn Cox Mahoney disclosed a murder-for-hire plot reported to her by officials of the Illinois Department of Corrections. It seems that ex-husband Billy J. Cox hasn't been idle at Dixon Correctional Facility and allegedly has been looking for someone interested in a little side job. Or maybe someone with connections outside the walls.

Case No. 11CH001498 is titled "Complaint for Civil Conspiracy to Commit Murder". The defendants are R. Marc (sic) Gummerson, Billy J. Cox and known and unknown co-conspirators. Gummerson, a Woodstock attorney, is identified as the person handling Billy Cox's money and assets, while he is away on his 20-year holiday in Dixon. The Complaint asserts that Billy Cox chatted up fellow inmates to murder Carolyn Cox Mahoney "for pecuniary gain." IDOC officials apparently found an inmate who had agreed to accept payment from Gummerson.

Nothing inferred that Gummerson was any part of the plan or knew anything about it.

Carolyn Cox Mahoney wants the Court to restrain Billy J. Cox from conveying any monetary amount to any other individual without court approval. She also asks for a preliminary injunction against Gummerson from taking any action to convey or dispose of any of Billy Cox's property without prior court approval.

She also seeks at least $50,000 for the distress caused her by the plot.

Injunction sought by Carolyn Cox

A case has been filed in McHenry County Circuit Court involving a Woodstock attorney, R. Marc (sic) Gummerson. The case number is 11CH001498.

The Plaintiff in the case is Carolyn Cox Mahoney, whose case attracted a lot of attention in McHenry County after her then-husband was charged with, and later convicted of, attempted murder. Her attorney in this case is Robert T. Hanlon.

The Defendants are, according to the Circuit Clerk's online records, R. Marc (sic) Gummerson, who was Billy Cox's attorney during that murder case, and her former husband, Billy J. Cox, who is now in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (Inmate #R66584). Billy Cox, 70, is confined at the Dixon Correctional Center and currently has a parole date of February 26, 2022. Gummerson's middle name is spelled "Mark" on his firm's website at http://www.lawgr.com/

A conference date for scheduling is set for October 26, 2011, in the courtroom of Judge Michael T. Caldwell.

Numerous legal moves will probably be played out in the next four months, and I won't be surprised if Judge Caldwell either recuses himself or if a motion is made for a substitute judge, or even a move to take the case out of McHenry County.

Lawsuit filed after cases dropped

Late this afternoon a lawsuit was filed by a McHenry County couple, whose criminal case against them was dropped last week upon the Motion of the State's Attorney's office.

In March 2008 Jerome and Carla Pavlin were arrested by McHenry County Sheriff's deputies and charged with aggravaed battery and resisting arrest. After numerous court dates with their attorney, Mark Gummerson, and before the August 17th jury trial date that was on the docket, the State's Attorney's office moved to drop the case, formally called nolle prosequi, and did so emphatically With Prejudice, meaning that the charges against them were gone. And in court the further statement was made that the State's Attorney had no intention of re-filing charges against them.

That action ended an ordeal that had continued from March 2008 until this month.

Just before the end of the business day, their lawsuit was filed. It was too late in the day to get to the courthouse and read the Complaint. Details will be provided as soon as the Complaint is scanned into the court system computer and becomes available.

It was remarkable how quickly the Northwest Herald obtained copies of the deputies' reports and published them. It is also inexcusable that the Northwest Herald would display the home address and telephone number of defendants against whom all charges had just been dropped through a link on its website.

I wonder how the editor and the publisher of the Northwest Herald would feel if I published their home addresses and home telephone numbers. Just imagine the irate calls every time the Cubs lost or it rained or a typo appeared in someone's name.

They published the personal information of senior citizens who had just been cleared. Was this an unnecessary and inappropriate breach of privacy. And was the breach at the sheriff's department, where the address and telephone numbers could have been redacted.

Follow this story on this site. Details of their lawsuit will be published as soon as they are available.

Charges dismissed against Pavlins!!!

In the McHenry County Court of Judge Condon, filling in for Judge Prather this morning, criminal charges were dismissed against Jerome Pavlin and Carla Pavlin.

Last Friday the State filed a Motion that it would ask the Court to nolle prosequi these cases.

But this morning it was more than that. The State didn’t just drop the charges. Assistant State’s Attorney Donna Kelly addressed the Court emphatically, when she added that the Motion was with prejudice. And she further added, for the benefit of Mr. and Mrs. Pavlin, that “the State does not intend to refile the charges.”

The Pavlins were in their home in March 2008 when several deputies of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department arrived to serve an arrest warrant on their adult son, who was visiting them.

One deputy broke an outside glass panel in the front door. The son was taken into custody and escorted outside the house. The deputies were asked to leave the house but they did not; once the son was out of the residence, they had no further right to be in the house. Furthermore, they indicated they might search the house.

The Pavlins had told me that their son’s house had been trashed when it was searched, and they didn’t want their fine furnishings damaged.

The Pavlins are retired people, respectable, polite and of some financial means. I met Mr. Pavlin in October 2008 after learning of their injuries. Mr. Pavlin weighs about 130 pounds, and he was 80 years of age at the time.

Mr. Pavlin was near the front door, when he was thrown to the floor face down by two deputies. Then he was handcuffed – tightly - so tightly that the cuffs broke his skin. His wrists required medical treatment and bandaging. To this date, 16 months later, the damage to his skin is still visible.

While one deputy was leaning over her husband, Mrs. Pavin approached the deputy to get his attention. She realized he had on a bulletproof vest and would not feel a tap on his back. Next thing she knew, the deputy had punched her in her chest and pushed her violently backwards, causing injury to her that has not yet healed. Mrs. Pavlin's age at the time? 65.

Whatever happened to the rule that deputies may use only such force as is necessary? How much force do you need with senior citizens?

The public in McHenry County should be outraged that this couple was treated as they were and then arrested. Both were charged with aggravated battery and resisting a peace officer.

And today, 16 months later, all charges were dropped!!!

Let’s see what happens next. Will the deputies be charged with assaulting two senior citizens? Elder abuse is a serious offense in Illinois (isn't it?).

After court, the Pavlins could not talk to me, on orders from their attorney, Mark Gummerson. Watch for future developments!

The Public Hearing - - - that wasn't

Wish I'd been a fly on the wall just before the beginning of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting today. The commissioners were huddled at the front of the city council chambers for 10-15 minutes, during which time the attorney from the City Attorney's office joined them. Almost looked like a "meeting", but the meeting had not yet been called to order.

When the meeting did start, it quickly moved to the Grace Hall issue. Quite a number of Woodstock residents were gathered for the announced Public Hearing, so no one commented during the Public Comment portion of the meeting, because any comments on an agenda item are to be held for the comment period for that item.

The Petitioner for the Landmark status of Grace Hall is Caryl Lemanski. The Objector is Woodstock Christian Life Services, which is the owner of Grace Hall and which is represented by attorney Mark Gummerson.

Commission Chairman Tim Art attempted to explain how the public hearing would be conducted. He had some difficulty in gathering the right words and spoke them hesitantly and unsurely.

When he was about ready to open the Public Hearing on the Grace Hall property, attorney Gummerson asked to address the Commission before the Public Hearing was opened, and he was allowed to do so.

Gummerson stated that the owner of the property objected to the request for Landmark status and would fight it. To make a long story short, he waved Constitutional Law flags in front of the faces of the Commissioners; the clear inference was that, if the Commission proceeded, they could expect to get sued on Constitutional grounds.

He said firmly and forcefully that the Commisssion was (only) authorized by City ordinance, but his position was supported by State and Federal laws. Sort of, if they dared to go forward, look out!

Gummerson claimed he hadn't had time to prepare to cross-examine anyone who testified before the Commission. I was going to laugh out loud. The day that Mark Gummerson is not ready to cross-examine someone hasn't yet arrived. He could wake up from a sound sleep and be ready for cross-examination. He is a first-class attorney, with the skill, knowledge and experience to tear anyone to shreds on a moment's notice. In court, of course.

I have said for the 12 years I've lived in Woodstock, "If you ever need a killer-shark attorney, get Mark Gummerson (if you can afford him)."

Gummerson stood at the podium after making his forceful statements, almost daring the Commission not to agree with him. The Chairman never thanked him for his comments or directed him to take his seat. It was almost like Gummerson took over the meeting.

And it worked.

Commissioner Merida Woods spoke directly to Gummerson and stated a position against his. Commissioner Stebbins concurred with Merida. I could not believe that the Commissioners did not understand or challenge his gambit. And then vote down or pass on his Motion.

When I attempted to speak to the issue of delaying the public hearing, the Chairman would not recognize me, because I was not the Petitioner.

Gummerson served his clients well, which is exactly what a good attorney should do. The Commission agreed to postpone the public hearing for a month.

When the City first received Gummerson's objection to the Petition, it should have lined up the "heaviest", most-experienced attorney from the City Attorney's office. The City Manager should have seen that the Historic Preservation Commission would have strong legal representation. Gummerson basically provided the legal advice for the Commission and the Commission, not knowing whether it was the the right advice for them, accepted it.

The fly in the ointment? The City Council's Agenda for tomorrow night includes the Special Use Permit that Woodstock Christian Life Services wants.

My guess is that the City Council will wither under Mark Gummerson's attack tomorrow night and approve the Special Use Permit, including the demolition of Grace Hall.

And a month from now, when the public hearing is held? Woodstock Christian Life Services and Mark Gummerson won't even bother to show up.

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

Grace Hall - down but not out

An item on tonight's Agenda for the Woodstock City Council meeting was "Woodstock Christian Life Campus - Adoption of an Ordinance issuing a Special use Permit for the Woodstock Christian Life Services (WCLS) Campus."

My guess is that the bulk of tonight's audience was there tonight to hear about, and to discuss, the proposal to tear down Grace Hall, currently the operations headquarters of the WCLS. Attorney Mark Gummerson represented WCLS and wanted the City Council to split up the issue tonight into two parts: 1) the North and Central portions of the plan and 2) the South portion, which includes Grace Hall. Gummerson asked that the South portion be tabled.

Heck, with all those people in the room to speak against demolition of Grace Hall, we could have been there until noon tomorrow.

The Council didn't really want to do that, so the Mayor asked Gummerson (or Gummerson asked the City Council) about postponing the whole deal. And that's what they did.

There is jargon for that which probably came from some mayoral retreat or conference or seminar - "postpone to time indefinite..." What's wrong with just saying, "postpone at this time"?

It was clear that the City Council favors the plan and wants to move forward on it. Some of them might even be in favor of working hard to preserve the building known as Grace Hall. The Mayor spoke about upholding private property rights. Two councilmen said specifically that they are looking to "make this happen."

When one man spoke against postponement, the mayor was offended and was clearly defensive about any suggestion that the request of WCLS was, in view of a packed City Council chamber, a ploy to move the item to another date, which would require everyone who came out tonight to return on another night.

My thoughts? That resident hit the nail smack on the head. And, if I had been the lawyer for WCLS, that's exactly what I would have done. Buy some time. Move it off a few weeks, like maybe to the night of an early, heavy snow.