Algonquin Township

Algonquin Township – Clerk Lukasik facing Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

McHenry Co. (ECWd) –

Algonquin Township Clerk Karen Lukasik filed a counter-claim after being sued by the Township Road District.  Shortly after being served notice of Discovery and realizing her inclusion of her son and husband has subjected them to discovery depositions (article here), she tried to enrich herself (article here) by having the township pay her to withdraw her counterclaim.

Now, as of a June 3rd, 2019 filing by the Road District attorney Rob Hanlon, Lukasik is facing a motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings.  As with any other motion, it can be challenged and denied, however reading the information it would appear Hanlon has made a very strong case for the judge.  Pay close attention to the seven examples found in Lukasik’s Counter-claim and then think about what option the judge has under these circumstances.

  • 1. Andrew Gasser is mentioned in the Counter-complaint in seven limited paragraphs. See Exhibit A, counter-complaint paragraphs 2, 18, 22, 28, 31, 32, and 33.
  • 2. The first paragraph Andrew Gasser is mentioned in is paragraph 2 which alleges that Mr. Gasser is the Highway Commissioner.
  • 3. In Paragraph 18, it alleges that maybe Gasser, Lutzow or their agents or maybe somebody else removed documents from the RD-T cabinet after it went without notice for several weeks. In other words anybody could have removed a document, but it does not articulate whom or even why Gasser is mentioned in the scope of possible “who-done-its”. Importantly, it doesn’t even allege any document is actually missing.
  • 4. In paragraph 22 of the Counter-complaint there is a reference to termination of Ace Security when Gasser took office.
  • 5. The next reference to Andrew Gasser is in paragraph 28 of the counter-claim that alleges that Lukasik read from the McHenry County Blog that she was named by Gasser as a party to this action. Mr. Skinner may be sadden to hear that his blog is not legal authority and even it was, the statements therein are not a basis to obtain relief in this court.
  • 6. In paragraph 31, there is a reference to Gasser’s allegation that Lukasik intended to destroy records, with citation to the original complaint in this case.
  • 7. In Paragraph 32, there is a reference to Gasser’s allegation that he received a package.

In Laymen terms:

  • Lukasik informs the court Gasser is the Highway Commissioner (We suspect the entire McHenry County populous knows that)
  • Someone removed documents from a file cabinet (No evidence it had anything to do with Gasser)
  • Does not allege any document is actually missing (uh, someone took something but I don’t know what? )
  • Gasser terminated a Miller established security service (would you trust any security service upon taking office that was put in place by the past officials?)
  • She found out she was named in a suit from McHenry County Blog (good reporting exposes her being sued before she was even served.  Now that is funny but not sure why mentioning how she heard about it has any value to her counterclaim)
  • Yep, Gasser made an allegation that Lukasik intended to destroy records. ( Lukasik exposed on this very fact in this article)
  • Lukasik confirms Gasser received a package.  (Yep, he did and so did we).

The motion goes on to point out more key points, such as “nothing is alleged to advance any cause of action, much less a cause of action that would entitle any party to injunctive relief”, and “Moreover, the complaint doesn’t even attempt to advance a cause of action. Rather, it is a complaint for a remedy with no underlying cause of action.”

The closing paragraph says it all.

“In this case, the entire Counter-complaint sounds in a remedy without any facts to support that Andrew Gasser has done anything. Many of the allegations relate to events taking place before Gasser was even sworn in as Highway Commissioner. Moreover, Lukasik failed to plead any cause of action for which any relief could be obtained from Andrew Gasser either individually or as the Highway Commissioner.”

We have a couple of questions pertaining to this Counter Claim.

  • Was this case brought before the courts in good faith

Or

  • Was this just another example of Government contracted attorneys billing for what appears second rate legal service?

You can download the motion at this link or view below.

We will update as this case moves through the court.

Motion for Judgement on the pleadings - lukasik ff

.
Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we
ask that you consider donating at the below link.
</

Leave a witty comment