Intimidation or Legal Wrangling?

<!--[if gte mso 9

Edgar County: (ECWD's)

"Mr. Allen:  I have your new FOIA request and once again apologize that you were not earlier furnished the letters in question.  Apparently an e-mail you sent on April 2  to Scott Lackey, Chris Greeson, etc., et al, prompted a review of your previous response and it was then discovered the letters had inadvertently been omitted. "

What were those "inadvertently omitted" letters? 

Two letters from Craig Smith sent to IDOT that out of the blue showed up in my email on Wednesday of this week.  Two of the 4 Chris Patrick claimed had been sent yet he informed me he didn't have copies.

Nope, he didn't have copies, his attorney did.  Yet another word game being played by Chris Patrick.   Interestingly, these letters have not been shared with the County Board.  How convenient that Mr.Patrick thinks its OK to keep them in the dark as well.

I found it very strange to get these letters now because not only did they not come from the IDOT FOIA officer but they were almost 2 months since my request for them.  Why now, out of the blue, did they show up?  The quote above was the response to my questions on that.

I think when everyone reads these letters you are going to come away from this seeing how the real political game of intimidation and influence is played, especially in Edgar County.  I have only shared these letters a few people and all agreed, they come across in a very threatening manner. Mr. Smith even deflects this whole conflict issue to be IDOT's fault in his claim that they have created a "Riotous Situation" in Edgar County.  Pretty strong language and accusation to be making when the truth is it is Chris Patrick's actions that have led us to this day of turmoil.

February 11th Letter  -  February 19th Letter

After reading those letters and knowing county officials have have contacted Chapin Rose in an effort to bring political pressure on IDOT we can only sit and wait to see what happens.

I went to Springfield yesterday and tried to meet with IDOT to get some answers and there are times when you just know, a refusal to meet or respond has meaning.  I understand that IDOT is in no way shape or form obligated to meet with me on any of this and I respect that position as I am not a county official but I had to try to get answers.

I also know IDOT is in no way shape or form obligated to respond to what I would call very threatening and possibly intimating letters from a private attorney that doesn't represent this county.

What do I see on the horizon? 

I suspect IDOT is going to waiver under both political pressure as well as avoidance of what could be perceived as a legal threat or potential law suit from Craig Smith on behalf of Chris Patrick.  This type of intimidation is second nature for a lot of attorneys as a means to scare people into the results they want.  What this really means no one knows but I suspect some form of yet "another" recusal letter will be attempted as a means to get along.

If that is the case it will be interesting to see the language this time as the second recusal was worded different than the first.

Sadly, the whole purpose of the Prohibited Acts statute is to PREVENT things from every getting to this point.  That is clear in the language when it references a public officials violation can be deemed from simply the fact they  "may" be called to a vote.  You don't have to wait for the vote for the conflict to be confirmed.

If there is no conflict then why all the negotiations? 

No matter what is decided today by this county board or by IDOT in the future, we all know wrong when we see it and any attempt to wipe this under the rug, if successful, will yet again prove to the people of this county the law doesn't apply to certain people, especially with Craig Smith behind them.

I believe Mark Isaf KNOWS this is a huge problem and instead of leading the charge for the solution he punted to his former law partner to try and make it go away.  Sadly, that might just work............temporarily! 

Lets not forget all the funds Mr. Patrick has kept secret from the public at the Airport and all the Ready Mix he supplied and was paid for at the airport.   For a man to question another mans character over an expired registration when he has all of this going on is laughable at best.

 EDGAR CO. (ECWd) –

“Mr. Allen:  I have your new FOIA request and once again apologize that you were not earlier furnished the letters in question.  Apparently an e-mail you sent on April 2  to Scott Lackey, Chris Greeson, etc., et al, prompted a review of your previous response and it was then discovered the letters had inadvertently been omitted.”

That was the response I received after raising questions regarding an e-mail I got from the local IDOT office on Wednesday of this week.  That e-mail contained two letters that mysteriously were, “inadvertently omitted”  from my FOIA request.

Knowing quite well how the political game and legal wrangling has an impact in this county, it was no surprise to find out the local county officials, Chris Patrick and Mark Isaf, from what I understand, spoke with Senator Rose about the situation with IDOT holding back funds.  It was pretty clear they tried to convince Senator Rose that Chris has done no wrong.

Why take the political pressure route on this?  I would assume because the intimidation and legal wrangling by Craig Smith wasn’t working.   I say wasn’t working because to date I don’t believe IDOT has responded in any fashion to Craig Smith’s letters.

I know if I were in their shoes, I would not have taken kindly to the accusations and level of what appears to be intimidation and threats.  Mr. Smith even claimed IDOT was responsible for creating a “Riotous Situation” in Edgar County.  Isn’t it amazing that an attorney would deflect the fault to the ones trying to uphold the law instead of the one violating it.

If there was no conflict there would not be all this wrangling going on.  What you are witnessing is the world of lawyers and how they operate with intimidation in an effort to force compromise.  Nothing is black and white to them, it’s all gray!  Just look at Edgar County to see that!

I pray I am wrong, but I suspect, IDOT is going to move towards yet another form of a recusal letter for Mr. Patrick.  I believe a total declaration that Mr. Patrick will not sell ANY materials to the county, contractors or otherwise would work, however we have said that from day one.

If another recusal is in the works, it’s anyone’s guess what it will outline.  I know with implied threats from attorney’s the message is often received that a law suit is coming if you don’t do what we want.  Avoidance of any legal action is typically the first path week people take.  As our readers know, we don’t take kindly to threats or attempts to intimidate from attorneys!  I pray IDOT is the same way!

Please read the letters Mr. Smith sent to IDOT and feel free to comment on how you perceive them. I believe the intent is clear.  Intimidate and threat is the course of action.  That coupled with Political influence, and he might get his way, just like a typical spoiled rich kid.

February 11th Letter  –  February 19th Letter

The WHOLE PICTURE as to who you are dealing with?

 1.  Two Free Driveways on the county dime with no evidence he ever paid for it, not that that would make it right. 

2.   Over $7,0000 in payments to his company for Ready Mix from the Airport Account, which he was the Chairman of that board.  No approval to order that Ready Mix can be found in ANY minutes.  His recent justification was he also donated stuff but again, no proof.  Kind of like his claim he bartered with Rock with the township for the driveway and can’t provide a shred of proof.

3.    Sold Ready Mix to the County just two weeks after taking office and one of those sales was a DIRECT sale to the county for County Maintenance and DID NOT involve a contractor.

4.   Violated his recusal letter 2 days after signing it.  That led to a KNEW recusal letter that still doesn’t address state law.  They are only focusing on Federal compliance.

5.   Called for a vote to pay bills of which 3 of those bills were from his own company.

6.   Accepted payment from the county, which those checks constitute a contract based on case law.

All of this points to Chris Patrick’s lack of trustworthiness with the tax payer’s money and a total disregard for even trying to do the right thing. 

I would encourage everyone to contact their representatives on the County Board and in Springfield and voice your concerns on this matter, regardless of which side of this issue you are on!