Identifying who might need to be taken to court

An Order of Protection typically is issued if someone has sufficient evidence to prove that without such an Order of Protection, there invisible and present danger of further abuse will not stop.

But as with anyone who has ever had to approach a bench to request one, these court-ordered demands to cease and desist all contact still come with a 50/50 chance the perpetrator will ignore the instructions.   These paper documents cannot physically stop someone from abusing again and are intended to act as a deterrence rather than a physical frontline defense option.

It is not that there isn’t invisible and present risk with not having our laws ready and able to serve our community, despite the laws being only representative of ideas on paper as to what should be done to perform the frequently invisible “serve and protect” philosophy so many expect from whatever their taxpayer dollars are going towards.

Receiving judgment from a judge in a courtroom documenting the Village is not in compliance with our local code, let alone state and national rules does not by any means provide promise the Village will fix this situation in a timely manner.  Do we really need a judge and jury in a courtroom to demand no less than confirmation of what the status is of our various copies around the Village, which remains relatively absent despite threads beginning to come to light?

No matter how truthful or factual these circumstances are, the taxpayers are already facing a significant cost to cure this particular issue and imposing fines and penalties, let alone court-ordered timelines, would only further invoice away taxpayer dollars into the pocket of the Village Lawyer via the Village coffers for something he is contributing to.

It remains my position that Daniel McGrath just wants to make a couple of extra bucks for having to “deal” with this situation.   My continued refusal to secure the services of a lawyer to confront him at least continues to prevent him from invoicing the Village any further than he already has in connection to this issue.  If I was to bring a lawyer into this…can you imagine his billable hours to the Village???

Better yet, The Village, its residents and its business already have an “order of protection” in place to protect against such dangers as what is present in these circumstances.  Our book of laws clearly state that 3 copies will be available at all times and available for inspection.  These words certainly show intent to comply with various transparency issues and it only makes it more curious as to whether or not even McGrath can access a complete set of the laws upon his own demand.

Therefore, he shouldn’t be getting paid for “services rendered to the Village of Midlothian” when he hasn’t been serving the best interest of the Village of Midlothian for well over a year now by my records.  This is why I continue to not choose the option of suing the Village into compliance with the laws so that we have a complete set of laws on hand.  It would be a frivolous and misdirected lawsuit, despite its validity and the vital importance of keeping our books up to date.

So it remains my continued opinion that it is the Village’s obligation to sue J. Daniel McGrath for putting them in this position to begin with by not properly advising the Village on how to proceed with my complaint regarding the Municipal Code book that began last year.  The Village should be demanding a full refund for all invoices paid to him for these mysterious “services rendered” that I know I cannot see.  It is the Village as a municipality that continues to receive these padded and artificially inflated invoices for this particular circumstance we are facing.

I also know a few have shown if not total commitment, at least a willingness to hear out some of the steps that will need to be taken even if a court tells the Village to fix the problem.  That’s far more than McGrath has ever delivered to me while speaking “on behalf of the Village” regarding the condition of our laws.

I’ve never accepted his voice to be representative of “The Village of Midlothian” in any capacity and hope others will be able to recognize what a disappointment he is both as a business owner here in town and in the role of Village Lawyer.  I have no current issue with his business staying here, but his role as our lawyer must come to an end and the faster the better.

As for fast tracking this situation, The Village simply needs to get back the taxpayer dollars spent on McGrath and then go ahead, take the refund, find a different codifying service besides Sterling Codifiers and get the job done.  Finished.  Case closed.

Of course, the Village and McGrath could always settle out of court…but I know I would not settle for anything less than the cost it will take to get our Village Code Book into complete and total compliance along with some compensation for not mitigating the damages to our image this situation is causing and a written apology…but perhaps my desire for the apology is asking for too much since we all certainly can move on without it.

One of our tasks as a community is to ensure that the truest nature of Midlothian shines through since it is great place to live, work and shop, and the way to do that is to identify the few who continue to muck it up for the rest of us, like J. Daniel McGrath, Attorney At Law.

From where I sit, it’s all about saving the taxpayer dollars for the visible and tangible needs of our community, rather than being forced to direct our dollars towards these invisible and intangible pocketbook needs of a few, as it has been for quite some time now.

I just want our money back from McGrath for no true services rendered on our behalf, including the cost of the paper, ink, postage, phone conversations, emails, time and any other line item he charged the Village to write this last letter denying my FOIA requests.  It could very well be upwards of $100 at least, but I haven’t worked for lawyers in quite a while and my estimate might be a little off since I have no idea how much he charges the Village for his services to begin with.  And I can only guess how many times he invoiced the Village for talking with me personally…let alone anyone else in connection with this…

There’s a bunch of lawyer jokes in here somewhere…I’m just having a tough time finding the humor in all of this nonsense.

Response to FOIA denial on May 15, 2009

Following is a scanned copy and the original text of my response below, which was hand-delivered to the offices of J. Daniel McGrath:

Page 1 of response to FOIA denial by the Village Lawyer, J. Daniel McGrath

Page 2 of response to FOIA denial by the Village Lawyer, J. Daniel McGrath

Page 3 of response to FOIA denial by the Village Lawyer, J. Daniel McGrath

May 15, 2009

J. Daniel McGrath
Acting Representative for
Village of Midlothian
4610 West 147th Street
Midlothian, Illinois 60445

RE:  Your letter dated May 12, 2009 in reference to my communications on May 5, 2009

Dear Mr. McGrath,

Perhaps most importantly in this whole communication is my pointing out that although you are quick to “advise” me, your letter dated May 12, 2009 continues to provide documentation by your own hand of your continued improper and unprofessional behaviors in connection with this issue as I will demonstrate in this follow-up to my declined request.

First, you dated your letter May 12th certainly brings your response in line with the 7 day time period, however it is shameful your lead-in statement reads “Re:  Undated FOIA Request Received on or About May 6, 2009.”  Not only does each original copy I delivered to Village Hall clearly state the date of submission to be May 5, 2009, it only solidifies my deep concerns about how our Village approaches its legal side of life.

Perhaps most importantly with this particular line item issue, your inability to identify the date on my documented request is not only absurd, the fact that Village Hall fails to date and time stamp the receipt of such official documentation continues to reflect a pattern of negligence and a lack of concern for potential liability, including these circumstances transpiring between myself and the Village.

Next, you make the statement “It is improper to submit request to multiple individuals.”  Not only is there no documented guidelines available to identify what is “improper” and what is not here in the Village of Midlothian, I will continue to carbon copy any and all I believe to be in need of such communications until such time I see clear evidence that one copy will receive the time and attention it deserves, including a date and time stamp.

Certainly you might race to compose yet another set of rules because of my sharing yet another observation with you, such as what you did with the rules regarding recording Village Board Meetings and the Illinois Public Access Counselor being involved, but I remain steadfast and confident in knowing the Village can ask you to write anything you want, including rules defining what is “proper” and “improper” when it comes to a FOIA request, but if the rules are not crafted in compliance with existing laws and rules, I will continue to categorically reject them just as I continue to do with the current recording guidelines and proceed accordingly and your FOIA rejection letter.

You also state “In your improperly filed requests,” which further demonstrates your willingness to not act in the best interest of the Village when it comes to their obligation to interpret the law.  If my FOIA request was “improperly filed,” as you stated twice, you should have stated as such, made “advisement” I submit a new request, sign the document and then send it off.

Instead, you proceeded to acknowledge the receipt of such a document, you acknowledge multiple copies exist and then you state that only two will be treated as valid(?)

Therefore, it spirit of good faith resolution, I also will continue to proceed with this conversation despite a lack of the “proper form.”

Your decline of both of my requests using the statement “The request for such a large volume of data would be unduly burdensome on the Village of Midlothian” is once again irresponsible at best, especially since only one of the two requests represents real logistical issues.  So even though you did not separate my requests, I will go ahead and address them as the separate requests they are.

Based on my own experience running accounts payable and accounts receivable software and processes, I know for fact that a basic feature of the software is point and click reporting capabilities.  It is vital for any business to be able to pull up a report on any vendor at any time in order to perform a variety of tasks.  I specifically phrased this particular request knowing that accounting software has to allow room for reports and your denial on the grounds that it would somehow be “unduly burdensome.”

Therefore, my request for invoices surrounding codifying services in no way represents an undue or unreasonable burden to the Village and your joining this request with the other once again shows a complete failure on your part to represent the truth in your documented communications with me.

As for my second request to view all Village Ordinances from January 1, 2005 through May 1, 2009, although there are some logistics involved, the notion that my 2 formal requests to see a complete set of our laws represents an unreasonable or unfair burden again only reveals your total and complete unwillingness to help our Village come into compliance with the laws that govern Midlothian and out of the dark when it comes to the laws our Police Department, Building Department and everyone else is expected to enforce.

The bottom line is that Section 3(f) as you cited in no way protects the Village from the liabilities associated with the current invisible status of our Village Ordinances and it continues to be my judgment that it is your duty as a licensed legal professional to “advise” the Village that it is in everyone’s best interest to rectify this situation as quickly as possible.  It is your duty to display competence and confidence when communicating with the Voice of the Village and not this “undated FOIA request received on or about May 6, 2009” which is why I originally filed complaint against your professionalism last year.  The Village doesn’t have any legitimate legs to stand on should any lawyer or citizen choose to challenge these invisible laws and if a lawyer was receive the same stonewalling tactics as I have, including a lack of time and date stamp on official documents…you’re the lawyer.  Do you have confidence in explaining to a judge why such laws were unable to be produced on demand as our ordinance states the Village is obligated to do?  No one can even confirm whether or not the “baggy clothes” ordinance ever truly made it into our Code Book, but the Internet sure makes it look like it still exists.

It remains my opinion you should have been on the phone with Village Hall demanding to know exactly what day and time I submitted such a request since not only is such evidence vital to your position, it only has served to reinforce my position that the people of Midlothian continue to be victimized by outrageous and severely flawed reasoning when it comes to handling even the basics of managing a Municipality.

This last letter from you once again makes the Village look bad, especially if people such as myself, continue to remain wise enough to look past all of your stonewalling tactics as our Village Lawyer.

Therefore, since you acknowledged my first request regarding codifying services despite its proper format, then you should have no problem accepting my right to file my protest of your official judgment in this format and I will await the results of such a quick search of the Village’s database pertaining to the codifying issue.  As for the Ordinance issue, I also am protesting on the grounds I stated above and will be requesting your resignation shortly should you continue to serve this wonderful community with such unprofessionalism and lack of vision on how to put a lid on at least some of these mysterious rules and regulations swirling around.

After all, you’re the lawyer and according to you I am the loon in this situation…or at least that’s what you called me the last time I attempted to seek prompt resolution of another matter here in the Village.

Nothing can compare to being able to promptly see the laws for yourself, wouldn’t you agree?

P.S.  Please consider “advising” the Village that leaving Murawski’s name on the website in the slot saying “Mayor” has been a misrepresentation of the truth for the past 2 days and the Village can and should be held accountable for what it publishes on its website.

cc:    Mayor Terry Stephens
Village Clerk Mike Woike
Illinois Public Access Counselor

Copy of FOIA request denial

Following is a scanned copy and re-entered text copy of the denial letter received in response to 2 separate FOIA requests in conjunction with this issue. Copies of the FOIA requests I submitted to the Village are available in the post Why there you are…what are you doing hiding over there?

Denial of multiple FOIA requests under one citing of "unduly burdensome"

Text of letter from J. Daniel McGrath

Re:   Undated FOIA Request Received on or About May 6, 2009

Please be advised that the undersigned represents the Village of Midlothian with regard to the above referenced matter.  Please be further advised that I have had an opportunity to review your multiple requests for information.  It is improper to submit requests to multiple individuals.  Therefore, only two such requests will be deemed to have been received by the Village of Midlothian.  Moreover, you failed to file your request on the form provided by the Village of Midlothian.  Such forms are available at the Village Clerk’s office during the times it is open Monday through Saturday.

In your improperly filed requests, you submit requests for “Any and all invoices (if any) paid to the vendor known as Sterling Codifiers Inc…,” as well as “Any and all invoices (if any) paid to any vendor to perform the services of codifying the Municipal Codes…for the time period of January 1, 2005 through May 1, 2009.”  In addition, your second request is for “The proof of existence of any and all legislation that has been passed though the time period of January 1, 2005 through May 1, 2009.”

Such requests are categorical requests covered by Section 3(f) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.  The request for such a large volume of data would be unduly burdensome on the Village of Midlothian.  Therefore, the Village must deny you requests pursuant to Section 3(f) of the Act.

Very truly yours,

J. Daniel McGrath