Friday, August 28, 2009

"Drain's Curb Appeals are Wearing Thin" - Part 3

Said Terry Bibo of the JS after my third appearance before Judge Vespa. The recorded conversation I heard was as follows. Attorney Williams asked for dismissal because my compliant was the same as my original complaint. Judge Vespa said it appeared to him to be the same. I said "but I submitted an amended complaint through the Circuit Clerk's Office, took it down to the Sheriff's Dept. and paid $21 to have the amended complaint delivered to the city". Judge Vespa, said "you just wasted your money as you could have delivered it yourself". Ms. Williams said she did not receive a copy of my amended complaint. Judge Vespa appeared to not see the changes I had made including the letter from the County denying ownership of this "right of way" on city property. Ms. Williams said "hearsay". I said "Judge, it is in my exhibits". The judge flipped through the evidence not saying whether He found the document or not. Judge, I said, I was denied a legal description of the property by city officials. At that point Judge Vespa dismissed us and said he would send us a letter of his decision. I left the room, went to the Sheriff's Office and asked for a copy of the service I paid for. On a document marked "Service Entry to the City of Peoria" showed the my amended complaint was delivered to the city on 7/20/09, 11 days BEFORE the hearing, signed by Angela D. Herrich, Administration Specialist. I was told she works for Mary Ryan. I left a copy in Judge Vespa's box.

Someone is very inefficient or someone lied.

The judges decision? Complaint denied. Paragraph 3 read "The City of Peoria did not construct or improve the drain in question; the drain is not on traveled roadway, BUT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY". He then cited a Supreme Court case where the a drain constructed by a municipality "was across a five to seven foot shoulder and down a STEEP EMBANKMENT". Some comparison to a storm water inlet on a flat surface on a well traveled exit from White Oak Mall. No city signage saying "not for vehicular use" even though people had driven over that area for more than 30 years.

Move on to Part 3.

No comments: