The three-part Furstenau interview

i have to come out of my self imposed short lived retirement to write again. i thought after the censure of DICK i would be satisfied. well, i 'm not. after three days of reBUTTal mostly by DICKS attorney i feel compelled to go on... first off, our hero of the taxpayer is quoted, or his lawyer is quoted in the naperville sun december 25. "I DON'T CARE IF IT COST $ 5 MILLION DOLLARS. THE TAXPAYERS WILL UNDERSTAND. DO WE UNDERSTAND ???? I DON'T !!!!! we are to believe that there is a great conspiracy to GET DICK. the police want DICK, the city manager wants DICK, the city attorney wants DICK, the city of naperville employee's want DICK, and now, most of the city council want DICK. i have said this before, DICK you are not important enough to have a conspiracy against you. you brought this upon YOURSELF ! now, i contend if you are not DICK, his tearful wife, his sons or his 30 neighbor friends then there is no way you can stand for this man. the council found 8-1 that he has had major problems with city employee's. the argument for all 3 of you DICK blog backers is that he saves taxes and he is only one who fights for the taxpayer. well, does he really ? finally the naperville sun was less than impressive in the questions posed to DICK. most questions were answered by his ATTORNEY. and when DICK did answer, he said "he can't remember that." is this going to be his excuse ??? we all must write thousands of letters to DICK and tell him, we have had enough, and to step down.

email, furstenaur@naperville.il.us

Linking the censure to the arrest is easy to say, but will probably be difficult to prove in court. I certainly hope Collins, DF's attorney, can prove the link he's alleging (and not just be conjecture) or else I think the other councilmen should sue him.

It was good to hear DF's point of view, even if Collins did most of the talking. But I can't say I came away agreeing there is/was some city-wide conspiracy against DF. In fact, there were a few comments such as DF's wife's professional treatment by NPD which seemed to indicate the city (and police) aren't as biased as DF believes or fears.

Yes, I think DF should have been allowed to speak during the censure hearing. He should have been able to address each allegation made against him. Shame on the council for not letting this happen.

And to The Sun--why no blogging on the topic and how long was the blackout imposed? Why did you agree to the self-censureship? I find this info to be intriguing.

It is hard to imagine why they voted to censure Mr. Furstenau and why they would budget $400,000 in taxpayer money to fight him? It is an embarrassment and a waste of taxpayer money. If they had any brains, they would try and settle with Mr. Furstenau and give him the money he deserves. I doubt he will ever fully recover from this attack on his character.

It has become obvious they are out to get him. I hope he takes it all the way in court and wins. I know I would rule in his favor.

Go Dick!

I am sure there is enough blame to go around in the whole affair. However, regardless of his position on specific issues, it is apparent from many reports that Councilman Furstenau has some anger management issues and is unaware of proper workplace behavior. He has no right to threaten employees with their employment, harass or attempt to intimidate them. Those issues alone are enough to have him removed. I plan to support whomever runs against him in the next election. Since he is unable to control his behavior and there is no ability to recall him, it is up to the voters to show him the door at the next election. I would suggest he seek professional help to learn to control behavior.

I still support Mr. Furstenau. I still wish he had not sued the city, but I believe the city left him little choice. Unfortunately, the burden of proof is insurmountable-- even if he is justified, it is doubtful he can prove his case beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard. A reasonable arguement could be made that granting the interview is a confirmation of that assessment. If he can't win in court, try to win in public opinion.

The city owes him due process. Instead he was railroaded and there is no way, in my opinion, that many council members will change their positions. The city staff certainly will not -- they are never wrong, about anything..During his tenure, Furstenau asked the tough questions, the city fathers don't like it and he must be silenced and I think that they've succeeded -- to the great detriment of the citizens of this community.

No one can fight city hall.

Councilman Furstenau first attempted to what amounted to extortion
to recover the $190,ooo it cost him in his failed campaign blaming
his loss on the arrest. Furstenau never had a chance to win that
election as he didn't even have the support of his local party, helost to a better candidate. Then he sues the city of Naperville for the money claiming there was a conspiracy by the police department that led to his arrest. Police Chief Dial is one of the finest chiefs in this state. He would never involve himself in such activity nor would he allow his officers to act in that manner.

It is time Councilman Furstenau take responcibility for his own inappropriate conduct and apologize to the City of Naperville employees he may have offended over the years. If he can not do that then he should resign as he can no longer be effective and make unbiased decisions involving the police department and city employees in general.

Message to Southeast Side Dad: I said it before and find it irritating that I have to say it again - no obscenities, profanities or implications of such will be tolerated on this blog. If you've got something to say....just say it. If you can't keep it clean, zip it or go somewhere else. Thanks.

I believe I mistakenly put this in the wrong blog area before regarding the interview and the 'stipulated bench trial' question:

From the interview, it sounds as if DF and his Lawyer are saying that the city insisted on it because they lacked evidence.

From my understanding, only the defendant can ask for it in a criminal trial. The way they explained it in the interview leads me to believe they are saying the city forced it that direction.

Is there any lawyer on here that can clear that distinction up because I was under the impression that only the defense can waive that right to a trial by jury (a civil right). Now, DF did say he signed it (waived that right) because his lawyer advised him to, but still made it sound like it was the prosecution's doing/initiation.

Message to T. B.: You're blogging on the topic right now. As stated, Councilman Furstenau requested - and we agreed - not to blog on the topic the DAY of the interview and until the interview ran in full. It was only fair that the three-part series ran in full both in print and on our web site (napersun.com) before it was laid open for comment and discussion. That way readers, bloggers etc. could weigh in having read the whole interview and have the ability to put things into full context to offer their views. I would hardly call that "self-censureship." I'd call it fairness. I hope I've answered your question.

The main problem I am presently having with Councilman Furstenau here is that the moment he stepped into the realm of conspiracy theory, his entire case against the City Council and everyone who he is presently suing fell to pieces in my eyes. Anytime anyone embarks on a voyage into conspiracy theory, the boat sinks just as it leaves the dock, because they fail to grasp what the concept of theory is; a nice sounding idea that is ganged up on by a brutal bunch of facts. In order for Councilman Furstenau to prove that such a conspiracy exists, he would have to prove that everyone from Mayor Pradel to Chief Of Police Dial and everyone else in between all worked together and plotted to bring Councilman Furstenau down and destroy both his reputation and political career. The problem is that this is not Chicago, where political antics like that have practically become something of a spectator sport. This is Naperville, sort of the epitome of Middle America, where it seems the only real political wrangling these days involves when the heck the Carillon is going to finally be completed. For Councilman Furstenau and his attorney to even suggest that such a conspiracy against him exists would mean their proving that each and every party involved was doing so at the risk of ruining their own personal careers and going against their own individual consciences, not to mention facing serious legal consequences, and that all were working together so as to bring down one city councilman. As I said, it is at that point that the Councilman’s case falls to pieces. This is why I now have a difficult time seeing his side in this matter and unless he and his attorney can offer solid concrete evidence to back up their claims, instead of threatening to sue anyone who even so much as looks at the Councilman the wrong way, I do not see how they could even bring such a case to the docket without making more a public fool of Councilman Furstenau than he already has become.

Referring to his lawsuit against the city, Dick is quoted in part 3 as saying:

"I don't care if it costs $5 million. The taxpayers will understand."

Sorry, but I do NOT understand. This is the man who is trying to make us believe that he truly watches the pocketbooks of taxpayers in Naperville?

What's wrong with this picture? How did we get a crazy man on Council?

And to the 20 Friends of Dick who stood up at Council at said he was a man of "integrity": How do you define integrity? Does your definition include someone who consistently votes on issues on which he has a direct conflict of interest? Such as, for example, whether or not the council should censor him?

If the Council really wants to put some teeth into its scolding, it should vote in an ordinance that says councilmen cannot vote on things on which they have a conflict, and they should LEAVE the dais during the discussion **and** the vote.

It is up to every elected official to make public his or her private interests in matters that come before the city. To do less is an insult to voters. And in cases where the conflict is obvious, get the heck off the dais. Don't make us come up there and get you.

There is always two sides to a story and somewhere in the middle is the truth. I think that statement is appropriate on this matter, I feel both sides are at fault and they are both acting like children. Basically, both sides are spinning this story to make themselves look good and the taxpayers will be the ones who will lose in the end.

My question is to the Naperville Sun...why weren't tougher questions asked? I would like to see the Naperville Sun ask DF directly, "have you every lost your temper during a city council meeting or at a city employee during your time as a city councilmen?" It has been said over and over again by his supporters that he does not lose his temper and that he doesn't have any anger issues. Why not ask him directly so he has a chance to clear his name on that topic? I kept looking for that type of question as I read the three part series, but never saw it. One more question to the Naperville Sun, were the questions that were asked during the interview pre-screened by DF's attorney or did they hear the question for the first time during the interview?

To Joe:

As an attorney, I was strongly put off by the positions Furstenau and his attorney tried to stake out on the issue of his "stipulated bench trial". Furstenau's statement that "a stipulated bench trial is . . . when the other side has no evidence and gives up" is beyond wrong. It's ludicrous. I was extremely disappointed that his attorney did very little to correct the misimpressions given thereby, and more than passing disappointed that the Sun also made no attempt to correctly explain what was very explainable.

Furstenau and his attorney are conflating two things: his waiver of a jury trial, which resulted in the judge trying the case (the bench trial), and the use of stipulated evidence in the course of the bench trial instead of actual testimony. One has nothing to do with the other. You can have stipulated evidence in a jury trial, and you can have full presentation of evidence, including cross-examination of witnesses, in a bench trial. The phrase 'stipulated bench trial' is gibberish.

You are correct the Furstenau, like any criminal defendant, had a right to a jury trial (US Constitution, Sixth Amendment), and he--and only he--controlled his right to waive it. If his attorney advised him to waive that right, that advice was presumably based on the attorney's professional judgement that it was advantageous for Furstenau to be tried by the judge, rather than by a jury. I will not speculate on why he might have thought so. Furstenau seems to indicate in his remarks that his attorney was virtually promising him victory if he waived his right to a jury. I find that unlikely, but interesting that such would be Furstenau's view of things.

Like any other criminal defendant, Furstenau also had the right to confront the witnesses against him (also US Constitution, Sixth Amendment). Again, Furstenau--and only Furstenau--controlled his ability to waive that right and accept stipulated evidence regarding the officer's testimony rather than demand the state produce the witness for direct testimony and cross examination. The government cannot frustrate that right merely by refusing to produce the witness, as the Councilman and his attorney imply in their answers. Furstenau had every right to demand that be done, but he voluntarily waived that right. As with his waiver of his right to trial by jury, I'm assuming his attorney advised him to do so because he felt it was advantageous or preferable in some way.

Somehow, Furstenau and his attorney want people to believe that his willingness to waive his Sixth Amendment rights to trial by jury and confrontation of witnesses is the equivalent of the government admitting they had no case. That is unquestionably not so. He won after doing so, which he certainly may be pleased about. The sun rises after the rooster crows, too, but the rooster would be mistaken in claiming that his cock-a-doodle awoke the sun.

joe

the city can go to the judge and request a stipulated bench trial. the judge can rule to allow the prosecution to go to the defense and request it. the defense, at that point, has the ultimate and final say. you are right that the defendant, and the defendant only, has the power to wave their right to a jury trial so the judge and prosecution can't force them to accept the bench trial. but the judge can allow the prosecution to go to the defense and request or suggest it, and the the defendant can decide for them self what they would like to do.

from what i gather in the interview, after furstenau received the request for the bench trial he asked his lawyer about it who responded by saying it is an admittance, of sorts, by the prosecution that their case is weak. furstenau then asked his lawyer how many he had done this way, he said 25 and that he had won all 25 and that they would not lose this one either. after hearing that, furstenau agreed to the bench trial requested by the city.

To Kevin: The questions were tough i.e. "did you ever hit, touch etc." and I believe you're indulging here in a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. As for the questions being pre-screened by Furstenau and his attorney, I can respond: Absolutely not. They heard them for the first time during the interview. Thanks.

You know, at the risk of stooping to sarcasm, I do believe that right about the coming of the spring, some enterprising entrepreneur out there could make a small fortune peddling “I’m being sued by Dick Furstenau!” and “My folks went to Naperville and all they got was this lousy lawsuit by Dick Furstenau!” T-shirts.

Phil--exactly! Thanks for spelling that out well. I found it fairly...arrogant, I guess, of DF to be claiming he was somehow wronged by the "stipulated bench trial". He had his shot to have Ofcr Hull cross-examined and he took a pass. He had his shot at a jury trial, and again took a pass. He can't come back now and somehow claim this is yet another injury placed on him by The Man.

Jim Lynch - OK self-censured may be too strong, but I'm still perplexed why their side would care about the blogs and the timing. After all, DF has been the (main?) subject of The Sun's blogs for some time now.

Monday morning Quarterback...a little dramatic don't you think? I don't agree with your assessment of tough questions and now I am Monday Morning QB...your paper asked him "did you ever hit, touch, etc...", that question has been asked many times to him and he has repeatedly said no, did you think he was going to change his answer during the interview with your paper? "Ok...I did hit him...you got me...don't worry about what I said in court!".

My question, to my knowledge, has not been asked to him..."Have you ever lost your temper during a city council meeting or with a city employee?" I think it is fair question and it seems to be the root of the defense by his supporters that he has not lost his temper and that he does not have anger issues. I just figured that questioned would be asked during a three part series. If it has been asked, please show me where.

To all,

It is clear that many did NOT read the actual censure documents (N-1) on the City site. In doing so, you would see that there was NO research done on the charges --- they were merely acdcepted as fact.

Also, under the guise of conspiracies, many would do yourselves justice by learning what it actually means: an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. So, for those who post that it needed to include everyone from Pradel on down, etc ---- NOPE! Take, say, a highly-placed City employee and one councilperson, as an example ---- Voila! You have a conspiracy!

Back to the listed charges [online] --- If you look closely at datas of letters, dtaes of items referenced in letters, the legalese of the petition itself, etc --- I see it as an easy loss for the city in a court of law. It is dumb, and they are dumb for not ending it. They got their head handed to them in Napergate, and it will happen again. Of course, they can just send Rosanova to the trial and he can scream at the witnesses ..........

To Kevin: C'mon, Monday Morning quarterback isn' that bad - just imagine if you were Rex Grossman. Seriously, the questions were tough. We were going for - and got - an on-the-record account of Dick Furstenau's side of the story. There were a lot of questions to be asked. We didn't manage to squeeze in yours i.e. "Have you ever lost your temper?" Thanks.

Note to T.B.: You're right - Dick Furstenau being prominently in the local news has made him the subject of blogs - and some very lively ones I might add, this one included. Simply put, what he asked that day (Friday, as the interview took place) was that the Sun refrain from blogging on this issue i.e. him and the lawsuit, censure etc. until the interview was complete and had been put out for public consumption. We4 didn' think that was a lot to ask. That was all. Again, no self-censuring.

Jim, I apologize and will try harder to reign it in.
I really appreciate the forum.

To Southeast Side Dad: No problem - we at all times get overheated as we discuss community issues....just trying to keep the conversation on a somewhat polite level. Not always easy to do. Glad for your participation.

Jim Lynch -

Thanks for the question you asked in your intro to this blog:

There is one nagging question, though, that comes into play. Just prior to the Council's 8-1 vote for censure, why wasn't Furstenau given the opportunity to address his accusers? Isn't that one of the hallmarks of the democratic process? Jim Lynch.

Jim, if you really wanted to pursue the issue, you might ask Doug Krouse and Darlene Senger which of their campaign supporters (ie big law firms, established businesses & developers around town) threatened to pull their support from Doug & Darlene's state campaigns if they did not change their position on the Furstenau censure. You might recall that Senger, Krouse & Bob Feisler had voted against the censure only two weeks before the actual vote. Ask them what changed? Feisler previously said he was not here at the time so, he would not be voting for the censure. Back room politics and horse trading caused Doug & Darlene to roll over. If they give you get a straight answer - you'll be on the way to that Pulitzer I keep talking about.

My answer to your question is that extreme political pressure was put on the three City Councilmen that changed their vote. City Council did not allow Furstenau to respond to the charges because the deal was already struck - behind closed doors - and most likely in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. It was politics that led to the censure - plain & simple. Politics that has its roots in Furstenau refusing to be a yes man for city staff and certain well connected friends of City Staff. Politics is fine and spirited politics is even helpful - but the City crossed the line when they allowed politics to drive the censure. It will not hold up in - the City failed to give Furstenau his "day in court" before they "convicted" him. It appears to be retalitory - because that is exactly what happened.

As to his conspiracy theory - Furstenau does not have to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" - that's the standard for criminal prosecution. Furstenau only needs to show by "a preponderance of the evidence" that his claims are true. This is more like a 51% confidence level. Criminal cases requires more like 99.9% level of confidence.

Furstenau's "conspiracy theory" is rather simple, it goes something like this: 1) Furstenau made political enemies at city hall by pushing hard against government waste 2) those political enemies encouraged and allowed a wrongful criminal prosecution by the NPD that Furstenau beat in court 3) Furstenau sued the city and the NPD in an effort to clear his name 3) since Furstenau's city hall enemies could not get the wrongful criminal prosecution and in retaliation for the federal lawsuit those same city hall rivals orchestrated a council censure that failed to provide Furstenau the most basic concepts of justice and "due process".

Oddly enough, had the City had not pursued the censure, Furstenau's case seemed an uphill battle. But, by railroading the censure after Furstenau filed a Federal Law suit, the city will need to explain "what changed". Otherwise, the censure appears to be retribution. Federal Courts do not like to see a party to any lawsuit takeing retribution during the case. The City will need to be able to explain to the Federal Judge 1) why now and 2) why the lack of fairness or due process. If the City fails to explain this obvious question - the $$ will grow for Furstenau.

Many people on this blog seem to believe that "the truth is somewhere in the middle." And, most likely these people are correct. Unfortunately for the City, if the Federal Court finds that Furstenau's claims have "any basis whatsoever" the City will lose big time. "Somewhere in the middle" means that Furstenau wins somewhere between zero and $15 million in damages.

My advice to City Council - find middle ground for an apology from both sides and settle this thing fast!!!

Michele,

That's a tall accusation about Doug and Darlene. Is it at all possible they arrived at their vote on their own after more carefully considering things like Corporate policies and regular HR practices in the private sector? Also, that's a tall accusation about violating open meetings act. Is there any proof of this or it is simply speculation on your part?

DF may not have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt (since it's not criminal), but you also ask the question why he wasn't allowed to face his accusers. Same answer: This was not a criminal matter.

After slogging through the three-part Furstenau interview, I can say that my opinion hasn't changed a bit.

I found the interview itself very illuminating. Furstenau comes across alternately as self-pitying, arrogant and churlish. He seems to have a razor-sharp memory when it comes to perceived wrongs done to him, but when it comes to the accusations against him made by staff, he cannot remember anything at all about those occasions. Awfully convenient.

And the prospect of a multi-million dollar suit made me clench my teeth. What gall. What greed. What a farce.

FIck has clearly worn out his welcome as an elected official -- and I don't care how many driveway issues he claims to have solved. If that's the best he can say about his tenure on the Council, he should hang his head in shame.

Bob S.
I agree with your remarks and feel as you do, "They got their head handed to them in Napergate, and it will happen again."

There is just too much evidence against the city and Dick only needs to show a preponderance of evidence and not proof beyond areasonable doubt.

It just seems odd to me that city officials let their egos interfere with what is best for the taxypayers. A lengthy 10 year legal battle involving 3 laws firms(2 outside and one internal) to defend against Napergate in hindsight was not the best course of action. It could have been settled for granting a liquor license he was entitled to and the TAXPAYERS could have been spared millions of dollars!

This DF case could have been settled for an apology....later an apology and a 100k. But city officials want a Napergate style battle and if they lose they will tell us we don't know what it COST US!!! Egos should never be an issue in legal battles!

Do we have any guarantees this time we will know what it will cost the TAXPAYERS???

many of you have said things that show that you only know 1 side of the story and you don't know what you are talking about.

Just Watching - you stated furstenau should recuse himself from censure vote and discussions, are you a moron. it is against the law to make him do either. he has every right as an elected official to be apart of those discussions and votes to defend himself. the argument that it would be a conflict of interest for him to defend himself makes zero sense. one of the reasons he stated in the interview that he is suing the city is because the censure topic took place in an executive session that he was asked to forced to recuse himself from. that was a violation of the open meetings act. if the council is going to discuss censuring him, he has the right to be there and defend himself. that is not a matter of opinion. it is a matter of the law.

kevin & jim r. - what does asking if he has ever lost his temper accomplish? furstenau himself has stated that some of his interactions have been heated or pointed. but he also stated that many of the people who are censuring him have done things similarly or even worse. in the interview he relays a story, which took place in executive session with all councilman present, that burchard himself went ballistic and the discussion had to stop because the council wanted him to settle down. furstenau said he isn't pearly white but neither is the rest of the council. that is why the censure was wrong. not only did he not get a chance to defend himself, but they were censuring him over behavior that they knew they were guilty of themselves. maybe jim lynch can provide any further clarification to this point if it was given in the interview.

phil & tb - your stipulated bench trial assertions are wrong again. if you read the interview it is clear that they discuss the fact that the city requested the bench trial because the state had no witnesses who would testify. after 17 months they had no witnesses to back their story even though it took place on a busy street in the middle of the day. they also make it clear that hull himself decided not to testify because he didn't want to be cross examined while under oath. that is why the city asked for a stipulated bench trial. they had no one to testify. they had no case. then you ask why didn't they drop the case? well that is a very interesting question. i have a feeling the answer will come out in court and be quite damning.

t.b. - i am certain that furstenau and his attorney aren't just making wild accusations that can't be backed up. im sure they aren't just blindly suing everyone. im sure they have some good reasons and evidence and maybe even witnesses, but aren't prepared to "tip" there hand. all of it will come out it court.

joe - when the states attorney said no to felony charges because there was no evidence, the city went and filed for misdemeanor battery. all you need to get an arrest warrant for that is an officer who says he was hit. the states attorney can't stop anything from proceeding at that point. you don't need any evidence. in the end, even hull wouldn't testify under oath, and they had no other evidence.

john murr - you may believe that chief dial is the greatest chief in the history of the world, but in know many people will disagree with you on that. furstenau doesn't allege that the npd is horrible and corrupt from top to bottom, but he does believe that he ones involved with his case need to be held accountable.

here is my opinion. i am certain of a couple of things:
1) one of the most interesting things i thought was said was when shawn collins said that he gets 10 or so calls a day with people coming out of the woodwork to share information they may know abou the whole situation downtown. he said most was a waste but some of it ends up being very pertinent and damning. it seems that furstenau is getting some unsolicited support from people who know some things.

2) furstenau said that this event would be very cleansing. it seems to me that they know some things that they are holding very close to their vest. so we still don't know the whole story.

3) if what furstenau and his attorney are alleging is even mostly true and they can prove most of it, the city is going to pay big-time. my opinion is that they wouldn't be making allegations and suing people they can't connect the dots to. they stated that they think burchard's letter was written by more people than just him. if they can prove that, the city is screwed.

4)this may be the most true thing on this blog. furstenau and collins know more about the whole situation then they are sharing and that is smart. people keep throwing out these rebuttals (states attorney this, evidence that)the truth is, none of us know anywhere near all the facts. we may know probably 20% of what they are aware of. it will all come out in court and it will be interesting to see. i think any judgment for or against is premature until we know all the facts, and it is clear we don't.

does jim lynch have any comments to add? any of your own impressions about their story and what they know versus what everyone else knows? are there points people make here that support or contradict anything that furstenau and collins shared with you?

Instead he was railroaded and there is no way, in my opinion, that many council members will change their positions. The city staff certainly will not -- they are never wrong, about anything...

No one can fight city hall.

Posted by: sam | December 26, 2007
******************************************************************
Sam,
You seem discouraged! Don't be! Beating City Hall is not easy. The Napergate Man is the only one that has done it in this town in recent years, but it has happened before in other towns. It can be done!

It just requires hard work, research, and a lot of patience to beat City Hall. Eventually some employees in City Hall will turn and support DF. I think employees turned against the city and began feeding the Napergate guy lots of crucial data that eventually helped him in his legal case. So remain optimistic! Time is on DF's side as long as the city does not settle!

I think Mr. Furstenau made a mistake to speak to the Naperville Sun. Many litigants make this same mistake and their words end up haunting them in court. I think litigants need to remain quiet.

If they need to speak, it should be done thru paid advertising as the Napergate guy did as you can control what you say and have your attorneys review it before having it published.
Anyone can say a wrong word when talking directly to the press as has happened in the Drew Peterson case. He refers to his wife as "it" and "something" in interviews which is a Freudian slip of the tongue indicating he knows she is dead. Or he would refer to Stacy as "she" or "her" instead.

Shawn Collins allowing his client to speak to the press was a HUGE MISTAKE. Sometimes you wonder if these attorneys want their 15 minutes of fame at the expense of their clients.

I believe in Dick Furstenau but I think he is not getting the best legal advice. His first attorney mislead him about what "stipulation" means and his current attorney is committing the sin of all times allowing his client to talk to the PRESS!

DF needs to do a case study on Napergate if he wants to beat City and not rely on his attorneys. He needs to lead the charge and tell his attorneys what they need to do and not expect them to do the right thing without his guidance.

I am still optimistic DF will learn from his mistakes, correct them, and beat City Halls as the Napergate Man did. He still has a chance as soon as he grabs the bull by the horn.

Taxpayer:

To answer your question....no. You make some good points as others on this subject have. As of now I know nothing other than what was said in the interview.

Michele B.
You obviously did not watch the city council meeting last week, or you would know that Furstenau was given the opportunity to respond to the misconduct claims before the censure vote. He was even asked if he had any different recollections of the events in question. He didn't have an answer. How would a face to face confrontation with his accusers be prudent? At the meeting, instead of taking the opportunity to respond to the documented misconduct issues, Furstenau chose to state that he helped people with their circular driveways, that he saw the censure as just retaliation for his federal lawsuit, and made other comments irrelevent to the issues at hand. If you saw the timeline in the Sun the other day, you would know that City Council voted in June to have a procedure for censure added to council rules, and it was instituted in September. Furstanau's Federal lawsuit was filed in late October.

The time line in the Sun gives a great perspective, including the fact that the city was right to reject Furstenau's attempt to get a cash payout, to help pay off his political cronies who supported his run for a failed state election try. Why would he expect the city to give him our hard earned tax dollars for political purposes? You can read the time line at: http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/furstenau/713577,na24_fursttimeline_s1.article

Taxpayer,

Why did DF agree to a bench trial?

Would it not have been more telling had they went through the jury process and made the prosecution say in full court that they had no witnesses to produce, not even the officer himself?

I still can't get past the fact that he signed away his own civil rights himself with his own hand then later claims to be 'deprived' of them.

Michelle B,
I have to agree that council members can be pressured to change their vote by those whom you mentioned but also due to heavy pressure coming from residents.

Doug Krause and Darlene Senger are known to be supporters and admirers of DF to the best of my knowledge. So their change of heart and conscience, I also believe is a result of pressure.

In the Spring Green battle led by the Napergate Man, 7 council members changed their mind in a very short time. At that time it was pressure of Napergate ads, residents, rallies, speakers, future votes, property owners, and everything else. Doug Krause was one of the council members changing his vote. Doug is a very nice guy but can be pressured to change his vote by residents, corps or legal firms! He wants to be on the right side of issues so he can advance his political career even if it means FLIP FLOPPING. Kind of a little like Hilary Clinton!

Mayor Pradel is a very nice guy also. He did not change his vote and all the pressure in the world could not effect him. He believed a shopping center fit just right in a residential neighborhood and that was it! One may disagree with Mr. Pradel, but one has to respect him for not FLIP FLOPPING under pressure like other council members. I do not believe he has any goals of advancing his political career beyond Mayor which he is very happy with.

And for blogger Joe, to expect you to prove what pressure may have come to bear is ridiculous. Some things in this world are so obvious yet unfortunately so unprovable until an insider FLIP FLOPS!! That could be a long while in some cases......

After reading the interview I still see it the same way - that Furstenau lost his temper and abused the cop. I also believe that the cop was advised not to testify in the hope that this would blow over, and as such proves the old adage that "no good deed goes unpunished".

I was disapointed that what seemed like most of the answers came from his lawyer instead of DF himself.

joe

i think that your questions are valid. my answer is this, i don't know. lol. i think all those things will come out in court when the time is right. MY OPINION is that the judge and furstenau's attorney were very well aware of the entire situation. when the city went to the judge to request permission to request a bench trial, the judge would have questioned them as to why, and then the judge, the city and furstenau's attorney im sure had some lengthy discussions as to what the situation was. but i think most telling sign is:

1) the fact that the city initially requested the bench trial is telling about their case. i believe it was a desperate move on their part. why did they need to request it if they did have a good case and witnesses? why did they not just drop the case all together? Did the states attorney suggest they drop it? if so, why didn't they? I think the answers to those questions will be a very telling when the time comes, and possibly very damaging.

it remains my opinion that there is more here than meets the eye. im certain there are a lot of facts here that we don't know about and it leaves many people against furstenau based on what we know, and i don't necessarily blame them either. but, again, i think that one of the most interesting things furstenau's attorney said is that they have learned a lot of things since they filed this suit and that people are coming forward with information on a daily basis. right after that was said, they said this would be a cleansing experience for the city. i have no idea what they know, but i do believe it will be very interesting to find out. many people at that point may change there mind.

the other interesting thing i found in that interview was the fact that furstenau attempted a settlement of some sorts 3 times. the first one being a request to the council for modest reprimand of the officers involved. when burchard went crazy and said absolutely not, furstenau asked for and apology and 130k to recover money lost in the "doomed" election. the third time, and the most telling one, was when a councilman recently approached him and asked him to consider settling that the council may be ready. when they contacted the city they said they would consider it but ONLY IF HE RESIGNS! even then they are making an attempt to get him out of office which is what furstenau has alleged from the beginning. that is interesting to me.

i know many people won't agree with me and that is fine. im just stating my opinion. i have been on these blogs for a while and it is no secret that i support mr. furstenau, but i do believe that there is more going on here than we are aware of. that they know more than they are telling us. that they have some "aces in the hole" to share when the trial gets here. im just suggesting many people may change their minds when we find out what they are. they could very well shock us. and i do believe that exposing dirty cops or corrupt officials and getting them out of positions of power is more important that the money the trial will cost. i think something like that will benefit the community infinitely more than the money. of course, that is if all that actually happens. we will see. we can argue whether or not it will forever, but, in the end it is meaningless to do so. i will now go back to blog retirement and watch what happens.

hey southeast dad,

you couldn't be more wrong. first of all it doesn't make any sense. the cops are going to pursue something for 18 months then, at the last minute, pull out and say, "lets just see if it blows over". are you kidding? that makes no sense. even if that is what they wanted, they would have just dropped the charges all together and not asked for the bench trial.

also, furstenau didn't lose his temper and abuse a cop. the judge even said so with the innocent verdict. and he came to that conclusion after considering hull's testimony. hull's testimony was allowed in court. in a stipulated bench trial, both sides agree to what witnesses would say if they were testifying. the difference is that, in a bench trial, they aren't subject to cross examination under oath. therefore, hull's testimony of events did go before the judge, along with all the rest of the prosecutions evidence for the bench trial, and the judge still declared him innocent. making the argument that he hit or made contact with the officer doesn't add up because he was found innocent in a court of law. this situation is now beyond that.

and now i am retiring. just frustrating when people say things that aren't even accurate or intelligent. it is one thing to have an opinion, but at least be intelligent and mostly accurate in what you state. at least be logical.

over and out

In order for Councilman Furstenau to prove that such a conspiracy exists, he would have to prove that everyone from Mayor Pradel to Chief Of Police Dial and everyone else in between all worked together and plotted to bring Councilman Furstenau down and destroy both his reputation and political career. The problem is that this is not Chicago, where political antics like that have practically become something of a spectator sport.Posted by: Mannerly | December 26, 2007 11:16 AM

******************************************************************
Mannerly,
You can never be so sure what involves a CONSPIRACY. Sometimes silence does!

In the Napegate case politicians left and right were alleging the liquor store owner was a habitual seller of liquor to minors.
Police Chief Dial had the records to indicate that the Napergate man was by far the toughest guy on minors in town...BY FAR! He knew that that guy consfisctated more fake and phoney IDs than all other 100 liquor establishments combined. Yet, he chose to remain silent while he knew elected officials like former Mayor Sam McCrane were blatantly lying.

I have little doubt that Chief Dial is a very nice guy with a great conscience. But is he willing to stand up to a Mayor, city attorneys and city staff and risk losing his job? History indicates he is not...at least in one case!!

The Napergate guy documented everything. He called the cops each time he got a fake ID and demanded a police report number. He apparently did not rely on the police dept. for records....he kept his own! One time he published a full page ad with 200 fake IDs documented by NPD police report numbers he accumalated.

In the end it was the Napergate Man's extreme documentation of the facts that exposed the city conspiracy against him. And many, many officials were undoubtedly involved! Unfortunately, good men like Chief Dial chose to remain silent while a conspiracy was going on.
Would he have lost his job if he spoke against City Officials that he had to know were lying? I believe so! So one has to ask if one is trying to save his job, is he a Co-conspirator? I don't know the answer to that questions but maybe the Federal Courts will answer that for us some time in the future.

If the answer is yes, many silent employees like Chief Dial, may not risk being silent in the future when they know wrong doing is taking place under their noses and with their knowledge.

The facts have really not come out in the DF case. Both sides are jumping the gun and assuming they know all the facts. We simply don't know yet. There is misinformation and confusion being fired by both sides.

But, Mannerly, please don't assume that the City of Naperville is not capable of being involved in a conspiracy. It is very capable and has in the past. I am just hoping it learned from the Napergate days and would not be involved in a 2nd conspiracy. But I can not be sure!!

I wish both sides of the blogging would take a one year break and let the litigating parties prepare their respective cases for Federal Court. Residents have to understand the legal system is very slow. We would be lucky if the trial started in 2009 and the appeals were done by 2012.

So my advice is we need to move on, enjoy the Holidays, and read the Naperville Sun when it reports in a timely and fair manner on the results of the trial. This bloggin stuff contains so much nonsense and speculation. If people want to blog they should blog on cases that went thru the court system and try to learn from them! Speculation on the future is nonsense!!!

Settling this case by learning from the expense of the Napergate experience is really the smartest thing to do. With all due respect, DF does not have the talent or support that the Napergate Man had to deliver a knock-out punch against City Hall in court and public opinion. And the city does not have the credibility or righteousness to deliver a knock out punch to DF in court and public opinion. It seems the public is evenly divided and thus the parties should settle...logic on occasion does make sense!

In the Napergate case thru a series of 100 full page ads loaded with facts, the Napergate Man was able to rally almost all the residents to his cause. If you successfully rally the residents to your cause with hard facts, you somehow rally the jury to your cause. If you rally the jury to your cause with hard facts, you will get a favorable verdict. The Napergate man had video surveillance in his store that helped prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, in addition to facts he accumalated and obtained from many sources. (Unfortunately there was no video in the punching/touching case which will make this case difficult for both sides to impress their points of view on a jury)

Neither party in this case has the needed ammunition to win. It will be a weak verdict for either side or a hung jury wasting even more taxpayer money. I think both parties should come to their senses, swallow their egos and settle this case quickly and efficently. I know no one is listening but I had an urge to write!

Finally, my suggestion is no apology but $100,000 to DF. The apology is implied with the settlement but yet allows the city to save face by not issuing a FORMAL APOLOGY! All the city has to tell the residents, is we chose to give him 100k to avoid paying the attorneys 400k. We chose to save the TAXPAYER 300k or 75% of the potential legal costs. The residents will buy this as it makes sense and EVERYONE WILL BE A WINNER!!! Is that really so hard to do....???

DICK, the old "watchdog" of the city's money states " I don't care if it costs $5 million, the tax payers will understand"! Wow, that was really a fiscally sound statement DICK!! I've got a great idea: Lets have DICK and Ofc. Hull both take a polygraph test as to the events that happened on 1/1/06. I bet DICK would take a pass on that offer...........

Elizabeth and Taxpayer,

Thanks for the backfill information. That's certainly more than the average citizen has any clue about. If half of what you say is true then I would probably agree with you on the Pay him some funds and make the whole thing blow over. Along with that, he better stick to his honor and refund EVERY PENNY to his contributors or else run the risk of being called a big liar about asking for that amount of money in the first place.

If the city pays him, do you suspect he will actually refund every single penny back to his contributors?

the difference is that, in a bench trial, they aren't subject to cross examination under oath.
and now i am retiring. just frustrating when people say things that aren't even accurate or intelligent. it is one thing to have an opinion, but at least be intelligent and mostly accurate in what you state. at least be logical. over and out
Posted by: taxpayer | December 26, 2007 08:11 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer,
You suggest people be intelligent and mostly accurate when expressing an opinion.

I just want to assure you that witnesses are subject to cross examination under oath, both in bench and jury trials. The only difference is in a bench trial the judge decides guilt or innocence. In a jury trial, the jury decides guilt or innocence.

You can stipulate to facts or statements in either kind of trial. If you stipulate, there is no cross-examination as pertains to only what was stipulated to. One can sitpulate to anything and everything if both parties agree. But whatever is not stipulated to is subject to cross-examination in either kinds of trials by both prosecutors and defense attorneys.

I suggest you come out of retirement, Taxpayer, and try to correct your statement. When you retire, you need to go out with a BANG on a good note. Try for a third retirement! On second thought if you keep retiring and coming back you may lose your credibility. Maybe it is better to continue blogging and not retire since I don't believe you are capable...and neither do you want to! Plus why retire! Most of what you say is credible and very informative. Over and out!!!

Marybeth
PS. I am not an attorney but been there and done that before...plus read a lot. And for the record I am a supporter of DF and also the Napergate Man who preceded him. But if you, Taxpayer, are not careful in what you say, you will not only ruin your credibilty but hurt DF's as people believe what they read especially when it is repeated over and over again. I had seen this repeated so I thought I would step in with some clarification!

joe,

i just realized i missed addressing one of your other questions directed to me about the stipulated bench trial and why furstenau would sign away his rights to a jury trial and then claim to be "deprived" of a jury trial or cheated by the bench trial.

the answer is: i don't think that is what he was trying to convey. what i took from it was that hull had decided not to testify in a jury trial to avoid cross examination. that is why the city suggested the bench trial. that simply demonstrated how weak there case was all along. that they only had 1 witness (hull) to base their story on, and in the end, even he wouldn't testify under oath to avoid the cross. i don't think they were trying to say they were cheated by waiving their rights. i think they were just trying to make the point that it demonstrated how weak and stupid the city's case was from the beginning. they were raising the question that if furstenau really hit hull, why did he eventually decide not to testify in a jury trial to avoid cross examination under oath? fishy? i understand you might not agree with that point, but i think that was the point they were making. it's fishy to me.

southwest

your not entirely accurate about furstenau choosing not to respond or defend himself to the allegations. all the other councilman spoke first, as you are aware. when rosanova spoke he asked dick if he had a different recollection of events or if he wanted to address them. rosanova stated he would be willing to listen and allow dick some time to respond, and then he also said something to the effect of, im sure the rest of the council would allow you an opportunity to do so, maybe even at a later date. furstenau didn't respond at that time because the mayor never gave him the floor to speak. they continued with the remainder of the councilman. when it came furstenau's turn to speak, he said his piece and then addressed rosanova at that time. he said he would be happy to address the allegations and share his version of events. he then told the mayor that if he was willing to afford him that opportunity he would be happy to respond. the mayor said no and started the vote. furstenau did, in fact, offer to address the allegations, but the mayor said no.

Bob S and Elizabeth--

You're right in sayign that a conspiracy does not have to involve everyone in the city (mayor on down); however, a conspiracy DOES have to involve an AGREEMENT to commit the act. Proving an agreement can sometimes be very difficult unless you can uncover evidence such as e-mail or other correspondence. Two people may be working towards the same common goal (legal or illegal) and yet not be working together. If two people file complaints about how they were treated by DF, you have to prove they were working together for this to be a conspiracy.

And just Bob S--

I'm quite certain you've never spent any time in a court room because you have no idea what you're talking about. To say that Hull made the decision not to testify so he wouldn't be cross-examined is simply not possible. Hull has no say in whether or not he testifies because witnesses cannot choose whether or not they want to testify. It's called a subpoena.

If DF hadn't agreed to Hull's stipulated testimony, then DF's attorney could have cross examined Hull. And DF's attorney could have subpoenaed Hull to testify if the prosecution didn't call Hull as a witness (which would be very unlikely Hull wouldn't be called as a witness since he's practically the only witness).

What you're missing from this case is that DF agreed to Hull's stipulated testimony. DF already agreed to what Hull's testimony would be. That's not to say that DF agreed with Hull, just that DF agreed to WHAT he would say. That should in no way be equated with Hull not wanting to be there or refusing to be there. In fact, from today's Sun we learn that Hull was ready, willing, and able to testify.

Bench trials are requested by both the prosecution and defense for various reasons and one can only speculate why the prosecution asked DF if he would agree to a bench trial; however, since the final decision was DF's then he should stop whining about it and move on. If he was so set on a trial by jury, then he should have had one (stipulated testimony or not).

Taxpayer, I am in complete agreement with you when you write:

"just frustrating when people say things that aren't even accurate or intelligent. it is one thing to have an opinion, but at least be intelligent and mostly accurate in what you state. at least be logical."

Now, I'm going to ask you to follow your own advice, because you preceeded that statement with a number of statements in plain violation of your own stated philosophy:

"in a stipulated bench trial, both sides agree to what witnesses would say if they were testifying."

No. In a regular criminal trial, there is a judge, who makes legal rules and makes sure legal procedure is followed, and there is a jury who decides all facts, and the ultimate verdict. In a bench trial, there is no jury and the judge performs the role of the jury, in addition to his regular role. That is the *only* difference. The fact that the case is tried to the bench does not change the rules of evidence. See: http://www.dupageco.org/courts/docs/courtsystem.pdf (scroll to page 9)

As you can see, that document also reinforces my earlier point that in a criminal trial, there will be a jury unless the defendant waives his right to the jury in writing. A waiver is not a stipulation. A waiver is the free cessation of a right by a single person. A stipulation is an agreement between two people. This is one reason, apart from the fact that there simply is no such thing, that the phrase 'stipulated bench trial' is gibberish. For criminal cases, such a stipulation is legally impossible because the government cannot be a party to the decision.

The decision to try the case to the bench is made solely by the defendant, and must be freely made. Your insistence that there is significance to the 'fact' (which you have not noticed is not a fact, but is merely the assertion of Furstenau) that the government requested the waiver from Furstenau is not logical. The government simply has no say in the matter.

"the difference is that, in a bench trial, they aren't subject to cross examination under oath."

No. The rules of evidence do not change for a bench trial. The constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants do not disappear with the jury. Furstenau's waiver of the right to a jury did not constitute a waiver of his right to confront witnesses. However, in a criminal trial, as in all trials, the parties can stipulate to the use of evidence. An evidentiary stipulation is an agreement between both parties to a trial that a particular piece of evidence may be considered by the finder of fact as true and accurate and that it's use in the the trial is legally unobjectionable. In this case, the prosecution proffered a stipulation as to what the police officer would testify to, if called as a witness. The defense agreed to that stipulation. Consequently, the judge was free to consider that evidence.

The stipulation of evidence is a completely separate matter from whether the case is tried to the bench or the jury. It is common in both bench trials and jury trials and is strongly encouraged in the name of judicial efficiency. It does not amount to an admission by either side that they have no evidence or no case. To assert otherwise is absurd. That Furstenau and his attorney insist upon these points strongly damages their credibility.

If you read the interview, the reason that the defense would agree to that stipulation is fairly evident. Their strategy for attacking the credibility of this testimony did not revolve around direct rebuttle of the police officer's story. Conequently, cross-examination would be largely pointless. Rather, Furstenau's attorney recited a number of procedures the officer should have done (reports that would have had to be filed, etc.), in the event that his assertions about being assaulted were true. Presumably, from the attorney's remarks, the stipulation included the fact that none of these procedural follow-up steps were taken.

"therefore, hull's testimony of events did go before the judge, along with all the rest of the prosecutions evidence for the bench trial, and the judge still declared him innocent. making the argument that he hit or made contact with the officer doesn't add up because he was found innocent in a court of law. this situation is now beyond that."

The situation is now that Furstenau is suing the city alleging (among other things) that the prosecution was baseless. One cannot prove a prosecution baseless, of course, merely by pointing out one was aquitted. That is why he is saying things like "a stipulated bench trial is . . . when the other side has no evidence and gives up". That is why, in turn, it is important for people who know better to speak up and explain why such statements are ridiculous. We are not beyond that, at all.

The conduct of both sides in this dispute is appalling! The potential expense in taxpayer dollars is staggering, and for what? There can be no winners, only sure losers--the citizens of Naperville. While it's true that there are two sides to every story, it is also true that "where there's smoke, there's fire." Whether or not he struck an officer, it seems quite likely that Mr. Furstenau has engaged in deplorable conduct during his tenure on the Council. While this is regrettable, it does not justify the lawsuit/censure circus to which we've been subjected.
The fact that the Council specifically, and City government in general, cannot resolve these issues internally--and without expenditures running into the hundreds of thousands--is simply egregious. It is folly for us to put our faith in a Council which can't manage its own affairs, and which demonstrates such an alarming disregard for the taxpayers who elected it in the first place. We must all consider, in the next Council elections, whether any of these individuals are worthy or capable of governing our wonderful city.
I am an 11-year resident, who is justifiably proud of Naperville. I just hope that those writers who have consistently called Naperville "one of the best American cities in which to live" haven't been reading the Sun lately.

Taxpayer,

Thank you for trying to go back and answer my question regarding civil rights, and I appreciate that the first sentence is your answer (i don't think that is what he was trying to convey.)

The rest of your answer has nothing to do with my question though.

Let me explain myself from another angle: If DF is pushing this up to a Federal Court because it's claimed that his Civil Rights have been violated, then he shares some of that responsibility because he himself signed away some of his Civil Rights.

It seems rather puzzling to be willing to sign away one's rights, then claim deprivation of some. DF waived his 6th/7th Amendment rights. He's the only one who could do that. So what Civil Rights are left (After we take those which HE HIMSELF signed away) off the table to be violated?

If their claim is that Council acted in a 'conspiracy' to reprimand a rogue employee who has stepped out of bounds (policy) with their conduct then that is just absurd. Heaven forbid any employer takes any sort of disciplinary action with regards to complaints by coworkers out of fear of being sued. What are they trying to say here? If a Co-Worker harasses you, just suck it up and take it because if two or more bosses catch wind of it and do anything about it then they will be sued and everyone is out of a job? I'm sure the gal in Sales who gets her behind grabbed on a daily basis by her slime ball coworker will love to hear that logic.

Circling back to topic... Which 'rights' of his were violated since the 6th and 7th were given up by his own signature and therefore can not be part of this claim?

Now that the man in under censure and has to behave himself as far as city employees go, I would very much like to see the Naperville Sun interview some of the city workers who have crossed the Councilman’s path at one point or another and what happened to them as a result. These people have most likely been living in fear of their jobs prior to the censure. I would really like to hear their stories now. Maybe then we would get a better picture of what the Councilman is really like.

To Moonrunner: Those would make great interviews. However, the way things are shaping up you'll probably have to drive into Chicago and listen to their testimony. I doubt any of those people will go on the record with the SUN about the alleged events, though we'd love to have them.

To Bob S--

My last post addressed to you (to "just Bob S") was meant for Taxpayer.

Hey Jim Lynch, my only question is that if the Councilman was indeed acting the way it has been claimed he acted towards some of these city employees, and also in light of the information given in the interview from the city attorney that appears in the Sun today, why didn't anyone act on stopping this guy before things got to where they are right now? Is it because the man actually had that much power and authority at the time, or was it because people who could have done something just turned and looked the other way?

To Moonrunner: Sorry, don't haver an answer to that one. By the way, your question sounds a bit rhetorical.

Joe,

I'm sure DF's claim are some sort of due process rights violation and false arrest. I hate to liken it to the Kevin Fox case since the circumstances are so different but DF's claim is probably similar (and yet so less severe, despite what DF's attorney seems to think).

DF's waving of his rights to a trial by jury (the bench trial) and also his right to cross examine the witness (the stipulation) were after the arrest (which is what DF is suing about) and were also limited to his court proceeding.

Elizabeth,

Regarding your above post,(Posted by: Elizabeth | December 26, 2007 08:32 PM) I fully agree with you. It seems like everyone is trying to make a point for one side or another. You appear to be the most neutral, have the most insight based on history, and provide the most reasonable solution. I hope both litigating parties agree to your recommended settlement as it is fairly balanced and would allow both parties to save face, while putting this fiasco behind us.

It seems like no one is paying attention, because everyone is in a FIGHTING MODE. No one wants even a CHRISTMAS TRUCE. How sad!!