McHenry Co. (ECWd) -
Paper trails are like bread crumbs and while the birds may have eaten most of them during this cold snap,(or was it a rag that wiped the computer hard drives?), James Kelly has left one crumb the size of a loaf of bread.
Where to start?
How about when the Township Board stripped $100,000.00 from the Road District's presented budget and James Kelly said there was no real case law on the matter, green-lighting the Township Board's action. We wrote about that in this article. Note we cited the Newport case.
Two days after that article published, the Township Board was sued on the matter, as predicted. We wrote about the lawsuit in this article. Note the filing also cited the Newport case.
Back up....as in computer?
December 18, 2012 - James Kelly tells Bob Miller, former Algonquin Township Road District Highway Commissioner he should read (drumroll please) the Newport case. (Newport case). Not only did he urge Miller to read the Newport case, but he also made a very interesting statement.
"The Road District should have gotten sanctions against the Township and its attorneys for this suit."
Does anyone have a mirror?
Sanctions for what Mr. Kelly? What was it in the Newport case that made you believe the Road District should have gotten sanctions against the Township?
"Accordingly, the trial court did not err by ordering the Township Board to put sufficient funds in the Road District's budget for the Highway Commissioner's legal fees from the 2009 lawsuit and approve the payment of such fees."
For those playing catch up, read the articles above and the suit that followed to grasp the full ramifications of this. The Newport Township board's actions were a direct parallel to the Algonquin Road District budget and bills issue. Kelly believed sanctions were in order in that case, yet now that he is on the Board side of the table, he claimed there is no real case law on the matter, even though in 2012 he cited from the very case law, and believed the Township Board should be sanctioned.
Please find attached a copy of your e-mail to the Algonquin Township Road District from December 18, 2012 with your opinion concerning Newport Tp. Road Dist. v pavelich as to whether or not sanctions were warranted in that case. I find it particularly interesting that you made the statement: "The Road District should have gotten sanctions against the Township and its attorneys for this suit". I will keep your statement in mind, as I reply. Based on this recent discovery, in light of your other positions and the motion you filed, I will be asking for sactions agaisnt you and the board for the responsive motion you filed that is now stayed. You may wish to re-assess your conduct before you are disqualified.
Imagine my amusement when I read your succient opinion in the attached correspondence when it directly conflicts with your advice to the Road District Board of Auditors creating the present dispute. The irony will certainly not be lost on the Court in that respect. This e-mail certainly sheds light on your recent conduct and positions taken by the Board with your advice. It also shows that you have counseled the Road Dist. on the exact same matters that are before the court in which your firm on one hand advised the Road District on this very issue and on the other hand advised the Board in a contrary fashion. That simply cannot be reconciled.
While I am under no obligation to provide this document to you, I do so as a courtesy.
Robert T. Hanlon
131 East Calhoun
Woodstock, Illinois 60098
(Email to James Kelly)
We have called for Kelly to be terminated multiple times, but now we have a new thought. Does anyone remember when the board insisted the attorneys must provide proof of malpractice insurance? We covered that in this article.
While their intention was to try and put the squeeze on the Road District attorney, the adoption of the policy found here may prove to be yet another unintended benefit to the Township. Yes, even a blind squirrel will find a nut.
About the only thing that could top this chain of events would be for the Township Board to hire Thomas Gooch III to sue Kelly for malpractice, an area of practice for Gooch.
Based on Kelly's own legal positions it appears he will be facing a sanction motion of which his own words and opinions are going to be used against him.
That will be a hearing for the local paper to not miss.