A forum for comments about Naperville news and issues.

Furstenau must undergo mental evaluation

| 334 Comments | No TrackBacks

Naperville City Councilman Richard Furstenau on Thursday was ordered by a judge to undergo a mental exam as part of his suit against several city officials.

Furstenau was arrested following an incident Jan. 1, 2006, where he was accused of shoving a police officer in a dispute over downtown parking. He was acquitted in the case in May 2007, and five months later Furstenau filed a suit contending police and city officials "mounted an orchestrated campaign to jail, silence and politically destroy" him because of positions he has taken while serving on the council, including his questions about police department spending.

Furstenau also claims in the lawsuit he has suffered persistent disturbed sleep and feelings of violation and powerlessness and is asking that he be awarded monetary damages for his alleged emotional distress.

It is this part of the suit that led to Thursday's ruling. City attorneys want to examine Furstenau to evaluate the mental distress portion of the claims.

What do you think of the recent developments in the suit, and the case in general?

Update: The city announced Monday that it has reached an agreement with Furstenau. He will drop his suit and each party will pay their own costs. The agreement will be voted on April 8.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/5716



Thanks for you kind words of encouragement.

Nothing wrong with being second.

However when you get this close, it hurts the most when you don't win it.

It hurts to be eliminated in the 1st Round but it hurts much more to be eliminated in the final game....because you were so close.

Getting this close does not happen very often....so it was unfortunately an opportunity missed.

Life goes on though and we will recover. As much as I am hurting, I can not imagine how bad the players are hurting.

Larry Bird is still hurting from not making it in 1979. Imagine that!

Make that, "Anyway, Legal Fees...."

Hopefully I'll get through this post without making any typos.


That's twice today that I either misspelled my handle, or left it off entirely. Oh, well.

Any, Legal Fees, don't get too down on your team. Fans of a couple hundred other teams would love for their favorites to have advanced as far as your Spartans.


Legal Fees wrote:

Here is something no one noticed. MSU beat NC in the second half 38-34. That one is so hard to beleive. Not one single reporter in the nation even noticed that.

That's because they don't award trophies for outscoring your opponent for one half---especially if it's the second half and you still lost by a bunch.


Thanks for you sympathies. The Spartans were terrible. I could not understand why Coach Izzo would leave Chris Allen in for so long. He missed seven 3 pointers and made none. He was completely off. Usually he takes players out after missing 2 or 3 shots and benches them. Maybe he did not get enough sleep. Maybe both of them did not get enough sleep. Izzo watches to much tape. Williams does not believe in watching so much tape. I think Izzo needs to learn a little from Williams. Izzo is almost roboting his players.

If this guy could have gotten his 3 pointers MSU could have won or made it close. Of course everyone else except Center Guran Suton played terrible. They suddenly forgot how to pass. They were nervous. Maybe putting an entire state on your shoulders for 20 year old kids is a bit much.

At least they came out second best in the nation. But the game was ugly and depressing.

It also could be N. Carolina which had 4 pros starting who passed up on the NBA draft made MSU look terrible. NC also had some luck with their shots the first few minutes that put MSU in a hole they could not get out of.

Here is something no one noticed. MSU beat NC in the second half 38-34. That one is so hard to beleive. Not one single reporter in the nation even noticed that.

On a positive note, it looks like the MSU players will all be returning. It looks like the NC players are all turning pro as they have nothing left to accomplish. Last yeas Kansas did to NC what NC did to MSU. So maybe next year is MSU's year even though GS will be a big loss to the team.

Again, thanks for your sympathies.


Sorry Michigan State lost. The Big Ten is one of the conferences that I follow and I was happy one of the team made it to the final game.


Just so you understand I do not care if you identify me or don't identify me. I have nothing to worry about. I am very proud of who I am and what I accomplished in my life. Feel free to do as you please.

I don't want bloggers to assume I have something to worry about or hide and that you are doing me a favor by not identifying me.

The big and final game of the college season starts in about 2 hours and it will be nice to see the Cinderalla underdog Spartans of Michigan State take on the mighty North Carolina Tar Heels who have 4 pros starting who passed on the NBA last year for the sole cause of winning this National Championship game. There will be a lot of PRESSURE on NC.

No expert is picking MSU. NC slaughered MSU 98-63 earlier this year in the same exact stadium. The experts expect it to get slaughtered again. I hope they don't but everything is possible.

MSU beat the Pac Ten Tournament champ Southern Cal, beat the National Defending Champion Kansas, beat #1 seed Louisville that was ranked #1 in all the final AP, USA and every poll imaginable, beat #1 seed Connecticut that was #1 in the same polls this year for longer than any other team and yet no one says it has a chance to beat North Carolina....not a chance in a million.

I think this IZZO oach of MSU is a genious. He told his team that the weight of the devastated economy of Michigan is on their backs. The Detroit 20% unemployment rate is on their backs. That they are a second stimulous package for the State of Michigan And if that is not enough pressure he told them the weight of the Big 10 conference is on their backs since everyone is saying the Big 10 can't play decent basketball like the Big East Heavyweights whom MSU knocked out of the tournament in its last 2 games.

So this will be a major upset if IZZO and the Spartans can pull it off. Let us hope it is a close game so we can at least enjoy it. Let us see how much IZZO has improved this blue collar team from the day it lost to the pros of N. Carolina 98-63 in Decemeber. MSU is going for its 3rd National Championship in 30 years and they say the Big 10 can't play basketball. Izzo is in his 5th Final Four in 11 years, best in the nation, and they say the whole program at MSU is a fluke.

Well we will find out how EXPERIENCED these EXPERTS all are. I am hoping their records of prediction are as good as yours on this blog site, EXPERIENCED.

By Fed Up With The Noise on April 6, 2009 4:29 PM

Thanks. I guess I was right.

The interesting thing is that it is not uncommon for people to be charged with battery against an officer. The difference in the Furstenau case is that it went to trial and the Councilman was acquitted. Normally what happens is that through negotiation the charge is reduced to simple battery and the defendant no longer contests the case because it is better to be convicted on a misdemeanor than fight and possibly wind up with a felony.

Hope Michigan State wins DS!


Good Luck - this is so not worth it -

Guys, I think this discussion has run its course. Please talk about the Furstenau case on here and desist from the other discussions.


You are a work of art. A masterful creation.

I was on here discussing the subject thread. My opinion remains that Margo Ely has wasted too much money on the Dick Furstenau case....way too much taxpayer money unnecessarily. She could have done better and for wasting somewhere between 1.2-2 million dollars in my humble opinion she should submit her resignation immediately.

Instead of debating me you have threatened me with slander which you later corrected to libel. You threated me with jail by using an extortion case to prove people can be jailed for libel. And you went on with hidden threat after hidden threat.

Now you claim and you may well know my identity. You are indicating you will reveal my identity basically if I continue debating and exposing the truth behind what goes on in this town.

Do you really think I care if you identify me to 100 anonymous bloggers on this site? I really don't care. You can interpret my 25 plus court cases as you please. Your interpretation will be off base and I will prove it.

Do you think your identification of me is going to make the front pages of the Naperville Sun where 143,000 residents will find out who I am? The Sun does not cover historical events. It only covers current events. So you are basically identifying me to 100 Anonymous Bloggers.....Big Deal!

What you are trying to do is BLACKMAIL me into silence. That won't happen. I would rather be identified than not being able to exercise my 1st Amendment Free Speech Rights. Whatever happened in court happened and is behind me. Whatever price I had to pay was paid. I don't consider my past embarrassing. I consider my past a learning experience that made me a better person.

Let Fed Up with the Noise(AKA Noisemamer), Keyboard Rambo and Anonymous One have a field day. At least you admit they have been taunting me. That I must give you credit for as being a very good observation. Hopefully, the Moderator will take note of your comment and stop their taunting instead of wondering who initiates it.

EXPERIENCED, I have not attacked you personally. I have attacked your message. I have attacked your threats. I have attacked your untruthful comments. I have attacked your arrogance. I have attacked your cockiness. I have attacked your mannerisms. I have attacked your numerous attempts to silence me.

There is something in my messages that extremely bothers you because you are a real person and what I am saying affects you....that is blatantly obvious! I am sorry my message hurts yo so much but it is the TRUTH!

You don't care about me. You don't care that I will be "embarrassed or identified." You only care about yourself. You are frightened to death that I may identify you and that is the only reason you are holding back from identifying me. You are a CLASSIC CHICKEN.

I have no doubt you will identify me whether I continue blogging or cease and desist blogging. While I enjoy the privacy and anonymity of this blog site, if I am identified the earth will not stop revovling around the Sun every 365 days. There will no earthquakes or volcanoes in Naperville. Life will go on whether you identify me or not.

As a lawyer who is apparently very familiar with my numerous cases you know I have been through a lot and identifying me would not be a historic event in my life.

Be assured whether you identify me or not, I will continue to debate you and others who attempt to distort the truth and facts on this blog site. I will continue you holding you accountable for your comments.

What makes you think you are entitled to the last word in our debate? Why should you be allowed to have the final word when you are feeding us misinformation almost daily? You simply don't want to be challenged and held accountable for your comments, so you issue threats which has no reached the LEVEL of BLACKMAIL.

By Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on April 6, 2009 2:01 AM


I said that I wouldn't communicate with you again, but you have thrown down the gauntlet. Be advised that on Sunday my first posting contained additional information that I asked the moderator to pull back because I found out why you were in court so often and I didn't want to embarass you or have someone else identify you. That is why I care. I cared that you wouldn't be embarassed or identified. I still don't care about your opinions on either the issues or your fellow bloggers. But, you can't leave it alone. Your replies don't seek to argue issues but embarass your opponents. You have an abrasive method of blogging. You don't create worthy opponents; you create enemies. You always have to get the dig in. You always try to personally belittle your opponents rather than address what's going on. Look at your last paragraph of your Sunday posting. Even when I gave up and tried to back off late on Sunday you still had to get the dig in by your last posting today.

Finally, the following paragraph has been re-written a number of times. The first versions would have severely embarassed you. Those that you taunt so often--Fed Up with the Noise, Keyboard Rambo and Anonymous One--would have had a field day. As I calmed down a bit, I decided to care again and changed it a number of times. You don't have to respond, in fact I expect you to publicly deny it. But, if Dunn County in 1992 rings a bell with you, you know in your heart that I am not blowing smoke.

DS, still have a happy holiday week.

PS to the Moderator: I tried to tone this down. I tried not to write it in the first place as evidenced by my posting on Sunday and my request to you earlier that day. Hopefully it's printable.


I knew who you were even before you identified yourself as in the legal profession. If you recall I said you were an attorney before you even identified yourself and later made it obvious with your posts.

However, I will keep you anonymous despite knowing who you are with great certainty.

Hundreds of bloggers have claimed I was dozens and dozens of people. All have been wrong. The latest accusation is that I am Dick Furstenau. It never ends. This guessing game is almost laughable.

I am not stupid enough to give hints to who I am. I give many hypotheticals to answer questions and prove people right or wrong. Many times bloggers assume my hypotheticals apply to me. I make sure they don't apply to me and most times I don't even identify them as hypotheticals in a deliberate attempt to confuse and protect my privacy which I value.

I enjoy being anonymous and I am sure you do. Most people blog here because they can be anonymous. Otherwise we would be running for city council. First you claim I am committing libel and slander. Now you claim you know me with a hint you can identify me if you wanted but will not. What is next on your agenda of scare tactics?

Again, the Moderator has stated we should be discussing the issues. Not you and I. What is bothering you so much? Why do you care so much that I stated Margo Ely should be doing a better review of the bills to these outside legal firms before she pays them or resign? That 2 million is too much money to spend on such a ludicrous case.... Why is this issue getting under you skin? Why is it eating you up alive?

I know exactly why but I will not say. I know exactly who you are but will not say. You really don't have to be a genious to figure who you are. Most attorneys who command 300-700 dollars per hour would never spend dozens and dozens of hours blogging for nothing. They would only blog for one reason....for one purpose. I know who you are and the reason you are blogging. But I will not identify you....how's that!

And now you contradict yourself and you say you suddenly care about some things after saying you don't care. Well of course you care and I have known that all along. So why initially say you don't care. If you don't care about an issue, you don't waste your time blogging unless you are here to get a rise or a high which I know is not your situation. You are hurt by my comments probably because they apply to you and that is why you are HERE. That is why you care.

Enjoy the Big Game tomorrow and have a nice holiday week. Lighten up a little bit and quit being so serious.

By Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on April 5, 2009 6:12 PM


Or, it could be that someone during the 1990's and early 2000's had a problem that caused them to be at odds with the system in another state before they moved to Illinois. That led to a lot of court appearances on multiple cases. However, it would seem that that person has straightened himself out and has since licked that problem.

One needs to keep ones anonymity when blogging. I am having a problem keeping your anonymity because I know who you are. Because I wish to not compromise your anonymity, I have decided to no longer communicate with you.

Although I once told you that I don't care, I really do care about some things. Have a nice holiday week.

Tim Leary,

I answered your accusation that I am Dick Furstenau in detail under the handle Anti-Establishment vs Establishment on the City Council Candidate's thread.

I use a different handle on that thread for those few who have not figured out my writing hand style after 2 years of blogging.

For those who still do not know, there is no Sun Blog Policy against using multiple handles.

Rather than promote my ego, I would rather promote the issue I am discussing in my handle.

Let us enjoy the National Championship game on Monday and stop bickering like parakeets for at least 24 hours. Thank you!

The Moderator gives good advice but no one seems like they want to listen. As he suggested for the umpteenth time let us focus on the issues concerning our city and not the anonymous bloggers who most likely will never be known....unless they choose to be known.

I will respond to everyuone later.

Right now I am soaking in the Final Four.

I love underdogs.

Michigan State has been an underdog and I will following that story until North Carolina is defeated.

After that I will try to get back to you all.

It seems like the Moderator is doing a great job handling you all.

One quick comment to EXPERIENCED:

If a business man or woman say own 25 businesses, he/she could easily be in court 25 times over a life time. That is if he/she is lucky. More likely it would be many times that. I am a little surprised your thinking is a bit slow. Like I said you act experienced but you are all talk and can't even being walking the walk.

Fed up, there's nothing wrong with the posts you highlighted which is why they were approved. When it is something I find objectionable I don't approve it. We all know that you and anonymous (currently known as Legal Fees) have an ongoing battle here and you are always watching one another. If that's what you want to do here then you can but it just creates trouble for me trying to referee between the two of you. I know you think I'm favoring him and he thinks I'm censoring him. What I would like is for everyone to just discuss the issues and not the personalities of the bloggers. But I've asked that before and the peace never lasts. The request still stands, however.


In the past 14 days I have had 5 postings "published"on this blog. Can you please tell me where I am attacking anyone or using insulting language? Of course these are experts from the posts in some cases, but I do not see where my language has been demeaning insulting or less than factual.

By Fed Up With The Noise on March 22, 2009 8:04 AM

Facial Expression

Please tell us who the "Establishment" is. Who leads this organization? Is the Establishment the Naperville chapter of the world Wide Cabal to rule the universe? We constantly see you and others ( are we sure there are really others?) posting against "The Establishment"? Is this the current term for what in the Sixties was termed "The Man"? You constantly bring up the gentleman involved in the Napergate events. Has anyone considered that he "retired" because he was tired of the craziness that has grown up around his actions?

By Fed Up With The Noise on March 30, 2009 11:56 AM

To Experienced:

Don't even both trying to make any kind of response to "Legal Fees will be over 2 million". Logic, your personal expertise, knowledge and reality will never have any bearing on the matter at hand. This person, under this handle, and a multitude of others, is a self proclaimed expert on just about every topic that can be thought of. If you disagree with them, this person will insult you, claim you are mentally defective, illiterate, uneducated, childish and certainly not in their league intellectually. Many of us have seen this time and time again. If you respond in any way that might be considered "hostile", they will claim you attacked them and look to the moderator for vindication and support. While many are interested in what you have to say, don't fall into the trap being set for you.

By Fed Up Witrh The Noise on April 1, 2009 10:04 PM


Don't say you weren't warned. You made statements that were in disagreement with someone's self proclaimed expertise and self righteousness - and now you are seeing their typical response tactics. You have been accused of attacking them, threatening them and being mentally unbalanced. It isn't worth the headaches.

By Fed Up With The Noise on April 2, 2009 11:16 AM


It was quite interesting to hear your thoughts about the potential for personal liability from comments made in blogs. As the editors have stated, they are not responsible for the comments made here.

By Fed Up With The Noise on April 2, 2009 10:30 PM

Some excerpts from the ST submission guidelines. I think the language is pretty clear - and I am sure it must have been developed by the STNG's legal advisers.

FURSTENAU endorses candidates!
This man is just soooo full of himself! Like I care who this guy thinks would be good on council. Are these people he "selected" ready to hand over the keys to the vault so he can get rich at the expense of the taxpayer?

By Legal Fees will be over 2 million on April 4, 2009 8:58 PM


You still haven't quite grasped the idea of the constitutional supremacy clause when it comes to federal v. state law. The Illinois law of disclaimers does not apply when the Congress says something different. And, in the case in question, it is not the disclaimer alone that we are talking about. It is a clear statement by Congress that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Oh, finally, I am normally in court more than 25 times in a year, let alone my lifetime. But, I am in the profession. Other than a commercial operation that does a lot of collection work, I can't quite grasp the idea of an individual being in court for 25 cases over a lifetime. Most people don't make it to court even once in a lifetime except, maybe, for an occassional speeding ticket.

As I've said, I don't care who started, I just don't want it to happen.


I do lay off the insults. I don't like insults. But every time I lay off for a while someone comes back with an insult barrage all over again. It is usually Fed Up with the Noise, Keyboard Rambo or Anonymous One.

I will lay off once again per your request.

But do me a favor and please consider not publishing the insults by these 3 bloggers who always start the insults.

Once again when they start it, I will point it out to you immediately as in the past and wonder why you allowed there insults in....it is like a broken record scenario that never ends. I think you have indicated it is your policy to let it start and then cut it off when it gets overboard or overheated. Why not never let it start in the first place? Why not try something different for a change?

As my record has shown over the last 2 years, I am really more interested in the issues than attacking these anonymous bloggers which is senseless. I attack them to maintain my credibility and expose them for the trouble makers they are. But every so often they attempt to discredit ME instead of MY MESSAGE. Obvioulsy most of them can not debate and that is why they resort to personal attacks that I NEVER START.


PS. Again while this post is for you it is also meant for publication. Thank you.

Legal fees, as I said before, you'll have more posts approved if you don't insult other bloggers in your post. I approved the last few but they're really close to the line and there's no reason for that. You don't have to like the other bloggers on here and they don't have to like you but I don't see why you can't lay off the insults. Keep it up and I will stop approving your posts again.

It does not waive willful and wanton conduct nor intentional action--one of which is driving drunk.



I think you made my point. Unlike yourself I am not a lawyer but have a lot of common sense.

If the Naperville Sun exhibits willful and wanton conduct by publishing falsehoods knowing they were falsehoods and very damaging to REAL PEOPLE they would be liable....under Federal, State or even Kangaroo Law.

I suspect that Moderator Chris knows this or he would not exercise the immense due diligence he implements day and night. I believe unlike yourself he is aware that any law is subject to more than one interpretation.

He even goes that extra mile and does not even publish hypotheticals that I try using to make a point about libel. Kudos to him for his superb diligence. He is not only protecting the Naperville Sun but protecting bloggers. Why should he take a chance on how a law can be interpreted. Why not be safe instead of sorry?

And you seem to think I may be liable for libel. Sorry buddy! I don't libel, I have a great understanding of libel laws and Moderator Chris does an excellent job keeping me a football field behind the libel line. Both he and I admitted many of my letters are not published. I think this is due to the extreme caution he undertakes as he takes his responsibility of a Moderator very seriously. None of my letters in my humble opinion that he does not publish contain libel or profanity. He just does not like any post being on or near the fence. So relax...no one is being libeled. It is simply a figment of your imagination. Sometimes you seem to hallucinate a little. Other times you attempt to threaten. Lighten up my friend. Stop this nonsesne of yours.

Thus you can see that your underhanded tactics of attempting to frighten me were nothing but hollow threats. They did not work. You have been defeated....badly!

And please stop associating with NOISEMAKER!!!


I think the problem is you think laws are entrenched in stone and black and white.

All laws are subject to interpretation. That is why we have lawyers, judges and juries.

I respect your opinions but disagree with them.

You do not respect my opinions because with all due respect you are a little arrogant(you call yourself experienced as if no one else is) as you think there is only one interpretation to any law.

Like I said, I have been to court over 25 times in my life. I probably have more experience than you do....but I am not claiming to be experienced.

One thing I learned from my attorneys over the years is nothing happens in court as you expect. If everything was black and white as you seem to think we should abolish out legal system. Everything is gray including the laws and we have trials so we can try to interpret the laws and apply the laws correctly to the pertinent cases before the court.

If Judges were half as smart as you EXPERIENCED and could interpret the law as well you do, there would never be a need for a bench or jury trial in this country. It is not me who is stubborn and inflexible. It is really you.

Watchs some Final 4 basketball and lighten up. Go Spartans!

Who are you picking between N. Carolina and Villanova?

Did you know that N.Carolina beat this same Michigan State in this same building 98 to 63 and now this team that lost by 35 points a few months ago is competing for the National Title on Monday Night?
That is an amazing FACT not subject to interpretation.

Now all the EXPERIENCED EXPERTS who thought they knew what they were talking about including Digger Philips and Dick Vitale, did not give Michigan State a chance. They said the Big Ten was a nothing conference and the Big East was the almighty conference. Well if NC takes care of business the Big East will not even have a team in the finals despite having 3 number one seeds. Shows you how much those EXPERIENCED EXPERTS really know. They are guessing and speculating just like you do on this blog site. When they are proven wrong, they simply change the subject. Dick Vitale said he would grow his hair(he has been bald for decades) if MSU won the National Championship after NC slaughterd them in Ford Field 98-63. Tom Izzo said he would shave his head after MSU took the Big Ten. Now he says he will shave it if they win Monday Nights Championship Game. At least Izzo can keep his promise. DV can not keep his promise as he wildly speculates and pretends he knows everything and puts his foot in his mouth...kind of like you do EXPERIENCED. At least you don't yell like he does. I will hand you that for speaking in mild tones. I respect and appreciate that. You are not a NOISEMAKER like Fed Up with the Noise. He is so ignorant that all he is capable of doing is making NOISE. You seem capable of debating but not accepting defeat when you are wrong. UCONN also does not like accepting defeat but when the final horn went off, they accepted defeat to Michigan State and shook their hands in good sportmanship. You need to show a little better sportmanship on this blog site.

My point is things in this world are never as they seem. Underdogs can win in sports or courtrooms. A good attorney can win a weak case and a bad attorney can lose an easy case. Tom Izzo is a good coach. He took a team of blue collar workers, not one member who made even 3rd team All American, and he has been bulldozing his way through the March Madness Tournament.

I hope my analogy can make some points with you and make you a little flexible. You have to give and take when you debate. You seem to only take. With all due respect, it does not work that way.


You are talking about apples and oranges. In Illinois tort law a disclaimer only waives ordinary negligence. It does not waive willful and wanton conduct nor intentional action--one of which is driving drunk. Under FEDERAL internet law and the cases decided thereunder (see the citations previously provided), the disclaimer and the statute shield the Sun from liability--either in Federal or State court. There are a bunch of cases on point if you look at the annotated USC. Have you read any of them or are you so entrenched in your views that you are unwilling to at least read the material I have posted?

As to Fed Up, you and I were having a conversation, and he and I were having a conversation. That is what happens on a blog. You don't get to limit the sphere of those who join in. You make a posting and you open yourself for comment from everyone. It is just like you commenting on my postings with him. It is expected. As to your negativity, your statements about him are similar to those that he made about you in the posting the moderator deleted. Hopefully the moderator will be consistent in applying his standards. Flaming another poster is flaming another poster.

Legal fees, I removed the line and published your post. I'm sorry that you spend time typing something that doesn't get posted, but if you don't want that to happen then you simply need to take a different tone and think more about what you write. I can't tell you everything you could possibly say that might violate our policies, but it's common sense. Don't write something on here that you wouldn't say in public. The vast majority of people post on here and I have no hesitation about publishing their posts because they don't use insults or profanity, they stick to the topic and they don't say anything libelous. That's all you have to do. There are other forums on the internet where anyone can say whatever they want, but this isn't like that. Just use common sense and you won't have any problems.


They were hypotheticals to teach people what they should not say.
I made it very clear she is nothing of the above.

I do not think I saved the letter since my computer restarted.

Feel free to take that sentence out if you like.

Or reconsider publishing as is.

Or maybe get a second opinion.

I clearly stated she is not that and meant what I said.

My only issue with her is that she is not putting the legal bills of these outside legal firms under a microscope. That clearly is not a crime to ask her to be more diligent or resign.

It is hard to be a contributor on this blog site when you do not publish letters that do not violate your guidelines and take precious and irreplaceable time to write and post.

My post did not violate any of your guidelines you posted recently on another thread. If it did and you point it out to me, I would be most appreciative and grateful.

It simply gave an example of what you should not say.

Please reconsider and enjoy the Final Four. There is a great game going on between MSU and UCONN. It is half time. I am rooting for State the underdog. I enjoy taking the side of the underdog both on your blog site and in the real world.


PS. This letter is meant for publication even though it is directed to you. Thanks!

Legal fees, I don't feel comfortable with your hypotheticals about Ely in your post.


If you recall it was you and I who were having a debate about libel and slander. A good debate despite being heated at times.

Fed Up with the Noise stuck himself in the middle by attempting to bad mouth me and not to discuss the issues you and I were discussing. You tolerated him and befriended him despite his classless behavior towards me. That is why I told him to butt out of our conversation. Because he is a trouble maker...a noise maker. A person who can rarely and barely put a paragraph together

When you befriend low lifes like Noisemaker you lower yourself to his level. The only reason you befriended him is because he attacked someone you were having a debate with....you were classless in your attempt to accept the support of a known loser.

No, I honestly can't say the same. Many of my posts were deleted by the Moderator some because they approached libel and others did not make it due to technical failures. I don't believe you can libel a handle....but apparently the moderator may believe you can. Or maybe he justs wants to keep his blog site as civil as possible. It is his blog site and most times I accept his decision with no comment.

Again you and the moderator are entitled to your opinion that a DISCLAIMER protects the Naperville Sun from liability. I disagree.

If Moderator Chris allowed the bloggers to libel and defame City Attorney Margo Eli with full knowledge that all that is untrue, the Moderator and the Naperville Sun would be liable for libel. The disclaimer would not be worth the paper it was written on.

Having said that this is not really an issue, since the Moderator would never allow such things to be said.

If disclaimers really worked in the real world, there would never be a lawsuit. When kids take school trips, they have to sign disclaimers that the school is not responsible if they get hurt. If the school bus driver decides to drive drunk and all the kids get killed do you think this DISCLAIMER would carry any weight. I know you would like to think I am stubborn but I am not. I am simply right. The reason I am mostly right, is because I stick to topics where I have knowledge and some expertise.

Before you answer my blog ask yourself the question about whether you would sue the school district despite having a disclaimer if they put your child in harm's way by allowing a drunk school driver to take him to a function. God forbid, your child was killed by this drunk driver. Are you going to do nothing because the school made you sign a disclaimer waiving all your rights? Is our judicial system suddenly paralyzed because the school district made you sign a disclaimer?

You and I would both sue if our child was seriously injured by the actions of a drunk bus driver despite all discliamers. Now try not to dance around my question and tell if you will sue or not sue because of the disclaimer. I will put 100-1 odds that you will sue and another 100-1 odds that you will win your lawsuit despite that louzy disclaimer that you seem to think removes any liability from those who insert them in fine or large print.

By Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on April 3, 2009 9:03 PM

DS The last time I actually addressed you, I told you that I didn't care. I still don't. Another blogger and I were discussing a topic and you decided, as normal, to "stick yourself in the middle of every exchange between 2 bloggers". And, I personally don't mind that because that is what blogging is all about. You create a post and you are fair game for all who read it and all who choose to respond. But, don't complain when it happens to you if you do it to others.

You are the one who has set yourself up as the know all and end all of the law of journalism. First on April 2, 2009 at 8:46 PM you challenge the moderator's understanding of defamation law. Now, you want to let the moderator make such decisions. You haven't even considered whether there is a difference between the liability of an Internet blog owner and the liability of the print media. The Sun-Times Media Group is not stupid. They know that the disclaimer and federal law protects them for their blogs. Please note that not one of my postings has ever been deleted as being inappropriate or off topic. Hopefully, you can say the same. I did get to read the deleted posting by Fed Up before the moderator changed his mind and deleted. It was a little overboard, but I've seen worse.

And remember, DS, I don't care.


I would love to discuss the issue of libel and slander with you if you would like.

I just think you are hijacking this thread and the subject matter of the thread is being ignored.

If the moderator sets up a thread about Libel and Slander, I am sure not only you and I but many others will chip in. I think it is a great subject but I am not the moderator. I am all for such a thread by the way.

I just did not like how you brought the subject to this thread. It was brought with the intention of frightening your fellow bloggers from speaking their minds. You were employing it as a scare tactic.

I thought that was inappropriate. You were trying to limit free speech by instilling fear in others.

I think you should let the Moderator handle the issue of libel.

As he told Noisemaker, he does not know how much he does not approve. I can attest the Moderator's statement is accurate.

I think we should do our best to be honest and truthful. If we slip up and I think I many of us have at times, the Moderator simply has not posted.

Again, the moderator seems to have a very good understanding of what libel is. Most bloggers don't. So people should speak their minds honestly and leave the rest to the Moderator.

The chance of being sued for a comment on a blog site is less than 1 in a billion. It is 10 times worse than winning a national lottery. And if it happens, they have to prove libel, they have to show damages and you have to have some money they can separate you from. And they have to find an attorney to take it on a contingency case. Easier said than done. So let us not worry about it and have fun blogging.

Fed up, you have no idea how much I don't approve. The same rules apply to everyone.

Fed Up With the Noise

I guess you were right. Someone has declared themselves moderator instead of Chris and seeks to limit discussion. I guess it's the waiving of the white flag.


You have really deviated from the subject matter of this thread.

If you like to follow rules than follow the guidelines of the Naperville Sun that you must discuss the subject matter of the thread which is Furstenau.

If you would like a debate about libel and slander, ask the Moderator to set up a new thread for you.

Libel and slander laws are very complex. Cases last weeks before a Judge and a Jury. There is no black and white in this field. Lots of gray areas.

If you think a sentence or two by you will resolve the complexity of this field, I think you need the mental examination and not Dick Furstenau.

Guys, I'm not going to let this turn into a flame war so don't bother submitting posts that just go off on another poster. Fed up, the first half of your last submission was fine, but the second part isn't.

Fed Up With The Noise

The other interesting thing about the Texas case is that the plaintiffs did not sue the blog owner for defamation. I believe that is because the plaintiffs realized that the blog owner was immune from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the cases decided thereunder.

"(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(e) Effect on other laws
(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. NO CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE BROUGHT AND NO LIABILITY MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER ANY STATE OR LOCAL LAW THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS SECTION."

see, e.g.,

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33 (2006).
Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816, 830 (2002).


If these submission guidelines that every newspaper has, carried any weight, no newspaper in America would have ever been sued for libel.

In the last 150 years hundreds of newspapers have been sued for libel thousands of times. The law books in libraries are loaded with these libel cases. Some have been won and some have been lost.

When it comes to a court of law, these disclaimers are not worth the paper they are written on.

A newspaper has to perform its due diligence to avoid litigation for libel. The Naperville Sun historically has been up to the challenge and done its due diligence.

Some excerpts from the ST submission guidelines. I think the language is pretty clear - and I am sure it must have been developed by the STNG's legal advisers.


Submission Guidelines

August 21, 2007
Any content you submit to this Web Site or otherwise to the Sun-Times Company ("Company"), including stories, information, blog or message board postings, photos, videos, music and any other content and materials ("User Content"), is subject to these Submission Guidelines and Company's Terms of Use. You agree to these Submission Guidelines and Company's Terms of Use by submitting any User Content.

Note that Company usually does not pre-screen your User Content.

With regard to your User Content, you agree that:

(2) Your User Content does not threaten, harass, intimidate, abuse others or use language that is intended to insult others. You may not make any negative comments that are connected to race or national origin, gender, sexual preference, religion or physical handicap.

(3) Your User Content does not contain profane, obscene, sexual or other inappropriate language.

(4) You won't make false statements. Don't lie or embellish the truth. If you think something is not true, don't say it (and don't ignore indications that something may not be true). This goes for anything you say about another person. Don't defame, libel or disparage anyone. And, always be truthful about yourself. Don't pretend to be another person and don’t access or submit User Content through anyone else’s account and don’t allow others to submit User Content through your account. Do not provide Company’s email to others so that they can submit User Content.


It isn't the editor's opinion on this matter. It is the official submission policy of the newspaper.

By Chris Magee March 30, 2009 4:36 PM

I have to correct your statement here. The Naperville Sun is not taking responsibility for anything people say on here. It clearly says in the terms of use on the bottom of our web site that we are not responsible for any comments users make.)


This is simply the opinion of the moderator. He is entilted to it. He does not have a law degree or a PhD in lability law to the best of my knowledge.

Just because he says we, the Naperville Sun, are not responsible for any comments users make does not make it so.

If the Moderator knowingly allows false statements to be printed that defame real people, in my opinion the Sun would be liable. If he unknowingly allowed a comment in that he had no way of knowing it was false or finding out it is false and exercised all due diligence, he would most likely not be liable.

Newspapers have been sued thousands of times for allowing information that they knew was libelous to be published....and they have been found liable in courts of law. Newspapers have been hit with large monetary judgments. To the best of my knowledge no newspaper executive has ever spent one day in a jail cell for allowing libel in his newspaper.

Having said that the Naperville Sun has nothing to worry about. Asking if someone committed a crime is not the same as accusing someone of committting a crime. That is how you avoid being sued for libel. You ask questions without making unsubstantiated accusations. You say you are suspicious. You say things don't add up. You state you believe improprieites have been committed not felony crimes. You use words like it "seems" or it "appears.". There is a complete art to getting your point across without crossing the lines of libel and slander.

I have dealt with libel attorneys long enough to know where the lines are are drawn.

Unfortunately, most people on this blog site are clueless to the boundaries of libel. Some do not know the difference between libel and slander. Others think extortion is libel. Thus the moderator has to exercise due diligence before publishing potentially libelous posts because he has chosen to actively moderate this blog site. If he was not moderating and simply publishing everything like on GretaWire, I believe he would have potentially no liability.(certainly a lot less in this untested and new field)

No one believes anything on Greta Wire since it is an obvious joke and completely unmoderated. Blogs are posted instantly without review. Bloggers call Drew Peterson a murderer and criminal on Greta Wire even though he was never convicted in a court of law. In a newspaper this would be libel. In an unregulatd blog site, apparently it is acceptable. Greta is a distinguished lawyer and I would suspect she knows what she is doing.

The Naperville Sun has gone a long way to try to make this site serious and credible. People believe much of what they read here. It is not a joke blog site. Therefore the moderator needs to do his role of due diligence. While it is extremely rare for a blog site or a blogger to get sued, it could happen and due diligence should always be exercised by all parties including bloggers.

A moderator can not simply say I am not repsonsible for a blog site he moderates and exonerate himself from all responsibility. That is like GM saying we are not responsible for a vehicle we produce. Of course they are responsible not matter how many disclaimers of irresponsibility they issue in fine print. Courts do not allow disclaimers as a green light to allow libel in newspapers and their blog sites or defective vehilces on the road.

Anyway this is my opinion just like the moderator has his opinion. Only a court of law can determine who is absolutely right.

Fed Up With The Noise

The Texas case is the one that needs to be watched. It has already set the premise that blog owners can be ordered to turn over information concerning the identity of their posters. In the Minnesota case that I was part of, the judge had no problem ordering the IP to turn over the identity of the customer that matched the IP address. Now the question is whether the posters once identified will be found liable for what they said.


It was quite interesting to hear your thoughts about the potential for personal liability from comments made in blogs. As the editors have stated, they are not responsible for the comments made here.

By Chris Magee March 30, 2009 4:36 PM

I have to correct your statement here. The Naperville Sun is not taking responsibility for anything people say on here. It clearly says in the terms of use on the bottom of our web site that we are not responsible for any comments users make.)

I would find it interesting to hear from other readers who have real experience or factual knowledge of legal issues about blogs and liability for statements made in them. I would encourage them to share that info with us. Certainly the postings here by many may have crossed or come dangerously close to crossing over into actionable, non-protected language. certainly, some of the posts have could be considered insulting, demeaning and condescending at the minimum.

By Fed Up Witrh The Noise on April 1, 2009 10:04 PM

I know. We are going to have to start calling it the DS syndrome. (Don't worry. He knows what it stands for.)

You notice that you and I were conversing and gues who stuck himself in the middle of OUR conversation.


Why do you have a need to stick yourself in the middle of every exchange between 2 bloggers. Do you think EXPERIENCE is a child who needs to cross the street and be warned? He claims he is an experienced adult. I don't think you need to warn him.

You are nothing but a NOISEMAKER who offers nothing to the debate.

It seems like you are an attention seeker who needs to shove yourself in the middle of any debate just to stir trouble.

Do you see me follow you around on the 10 threads you are blogging on to interfere with your debates assuming you are capable of having one? Why don't you mind your own business for once. Many people come on here to debate me. Let the more credible person with knowledge and facts on his or her side win the debate.

Do you think those who debate me are going to win the debate, if you come on here and bad mouth me? That is awfully childish and most people can see through those tactics employed by immature people with inferior complexes. I think it is about time you grew up, NOISEMAKER.


Don't say you weren't warned. You made statements that were in disagreement with someone's self proclaimed expertise and self righteousness - and now you are seeing their typical response tactics. You have been accused of attacking them, threatening them and being mentally unbalanced. It isn't worth the headaches.


You are the one who came here and threatened me by saying I may be libeling(you said slandering) others. I said I was not and you went on a rampaging tangent.

I am not trying to convince anyone my statements were not defamation. I know they were not. You are trying to accuse me of defamation because I am questioning the legal bills of the attorneys in the DF case. I have stated they are highly suspect. I have stated I suspect padding. I have stated they amount to 5 attorney working full time for a full year on a "he said she said" encounter that lasted a few minutes in downtown Naperville. I have stated the legal fees are outrageous. I stand by everything I said.

You brought in a case of extortion that had nothing to do with libel with an implication that I had something to worry about....like losing my home or even being jailed.

I think you have some very loose bearings. I never discussed mail fraud. You did! You opened the subject of defrauding federally funded government body....not me. You don't seem able to keep track of the sequence of the exchange.

You made the accusations of libel....not me! You brought up libel...not me! You brought up extortion...not me! You brought us criminal defamation...not me! You brought up mail fraud...not me!

You seem to be an attorney who is confusing me with your other cases. Maybe you are approaching retirement age and need to consider retirement.

I don't have to worm out of anything...you are trying to worm out of not being able to differentiate a libel case from an extortion case.

Yes, the forum is not about me. The blog site is not about me. So why did you try to make it about me with your threats and false accusations.

Why did you not stick to the topic of the thread instead of attempting to threaten me with libel and slander laws that have nothing to do with me?

In the end due to your slippery loose bearings, you need to review our exchange to refresh your memory assuming you have any memory still left. If you are capable, you will see yourself starting everything. I only responded to your senseless, nonsensical and hollow threats against me.

Have a good day and try to focus! Concentrate on your clients since most likely you are a city attorney being paid by the taxpayers. Try to avoid blogging during regular hours. As you have said to me, you can be traced. And don't try to say I opened that topic either.
You opened the entire can of worms and I advise you to reseal it ASAP.

By Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on April 1, 2009 3:28 AM

Are you trying to convince me or yourself that your statements were not defamation? DS Because, if you are trying to convince me you have to understand something: I don't care. And, who said we were talking about simple libel. I wasn't. I was talking about accusing someone of committing two federal crimes that affect their business or profession. Sounds like criminal defamation to me. Sounds like unprotected speech. At least the US Supreme Courts says so. I wasn't even going there and you pulled that one out by yourself. I was engaging you in a discussion concerning unnecessary services and/or high billing rates. You went out on your own concerning mail fraud and defrauding a federally funded governmental body. And, you won't let it go now that you've been called on your accusation. Sounds like you are trying to worm out of it. You have to remember what you often say, it's not about you. This forum is not about you. This blog is not about you. And, therefore, I don't care. DS

Most studies and surveys have ranked attorneys and used car dealers as the least credible professions on this earth

Followed closely by internet blogging! (For some it does seem to be a profession).


We have been talking about simple libel and slander.

Now you changed the subject to CRIMINAL DEFAMATION. Do you think bloggers are ignorant and naive? Do you think they can not tell the difference? A few blogs ago you were talking about EXTORTION.

Just as with IRS codes there are civil violations and criminal violations. The civil code simply wants money. The criminal code wants a jail sentence first and money later.

I feel strongly that better than 90% of attorneys nationwide have padded their bills at least once in their lifetime. Most I would say hundreds ot times.

If I am disgracing this group known as lawyers, they are welcome to step forward and file a libel lawsuit against me. The jury would just conclude that they disgraced themselves as a profession and I simply broadcast what they did to themselves.

Most studies and surveys have ranked attorneys and used car dealers as the least credible professions on this earth. I suspect there is a reason for that. One of the reasons cited is they are not trustworthy.

If the Lawyers of America as a group feel they have a case of CRIMINAL DEFAMATION against me, I urge them to step forward and file their lawsuit. All I ask is that I be given a pillow if they succeed in throwing me in an 8 by 4 cell.

I think you need to take your scare tactics, Experienced, and lock them up in your closet. This blog site is for debate. If you want to debate, let us debate.

If you want to continue with your hollow threats and intimidation tactics, I say take a hike. Maybe you can try to dress as Frankenstien this Halloween if you enjoy scaring people. Maybe you can scare a few children with your antics and acrobatics. I don't think you are capable of scaring a single adult even with half a brain.


PS. Rather than admit that simple slander and libel are not jailable offenses you have thrown in extortion and criminal defamation to try to convince us that they may be jailable. offenses. What are you going to throw in next.....kidnapping!!!
What law school gave you your degree? Was it from one of those online universities? Maybe next you are going to tell me your are going to sue me for damaging the reputation of your ulter ego that is contained in your handle or moniker. Please be my guest!

Concerning the case in question on criminal libel laws, please see:

"Criminal Defamation
Subdivision 1. Definition. Defamatory matter is anything which exposes a person or a group, class or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society, or injury to business or occupation.

Subd. 2. Acts constituting. Whoever with knowledge of its defamatory character orally, in writing or by any other means, communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of criminal defamation and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to
payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both."

Minn. Stat. 609.765

Also, Minn. Stat. 609.77 makes it a misdemeanor to pass false information to a media source with the intention that it will be published and defame another individual.

Other states:
Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250
Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885

Early Riser,
Sometimes you have to ramble on when bloggers think they can get away with falsehoods and lies on this blog site.

Do you think I was going to let EXPERIENCED mislead us and tell us we can be jailed and lose our homes if we accidentally libled someone based on a case he fabricated?

By rambling on and making some indisputable points, he later admitted he was talking about an extortion case and not a libel case. I did not believe him.

He was trying to instill fear in bloggers who oppose the city. It was important to ramble on and expose him for the person he is.....eventually the rambling exchange exposed him.

Furthermore, since the City of Naperville is a wasteful spender of taxpayer money it is important to expose it and hold it accountable for its drunken sailor ways at residential expense. When more residents start rambling the city will be more frugal with our hard earned money.

Dear Legal Fees:

Probably the most accurate thing you have said so far came in your post yesterday (March 30th at 5:44 am) ...."I can ramble on"

DF will soon be a minor human burst of methane in a wind storm...

Anonymous One,

You sound like a broken record. A parot would not repeat itself as much as you do.

I have blogged using many different handles. I even wrote the Moderator privately and told him I would be blogging under many different handles. He had no objectons and lets me blog using many different handles. I will continue using many different handles until the Moderator says I must blog under one handle.

Blogging under different handles does not mean I am lying. It means I don't want to make myself the issue. I am not concerned about my ego. I would rather be as anonymous as possible.

Most times I am not identified. Sometimes I am and have to deal with bloggers like you who speak parot language. Why don't you write about a topic once in a while? Discuss the issues.

The moderator told you numerous times I am not the issue. Not to discuss me. You continue to disobey the moderator. Are you that DUMB that you can not listen to the Moderator? Do you have some very loose bearings upstairs? Do you have the capacity to write about the topic on the designated thread? All you do is make NOISE on this blog site like your buddy the NOISE MAKER.

How many more times do you expect the Moderator to tell you I am not the issue of this blog site? How dumb can you possibly be? Get a life! Stop playing wanna be Moderator. You are making a fool of yourself trying to play Moderator.

If you want to be a Moderator open your own blog site. Set your own rules. If you want bloggers to be limited to one handle that is your perogative on your own blog site....but the Naperville Sun has not chosen to limit each blogger to one handle....so what is your problem? Grow up and mature a little.

Many people have told lies on this blog site for over 2 years now.


Amen to that Legal Fees! You are the poster child for that - you claimed to be 50+ different people all blogging and pretending to be part of a large group of bloggers called the Napergatians. It took the new moderator to finally expose you for who you were. If you want to call out credibility of others I think you have a ways to go.

I have to correct your statement here. The Naperville Sun is not taking responsibility for anything people say on here. It clearly says in the terms of use on the bottom of our web site that we are not responsible for any comments users make.


Well thank you! You proved my point that you can not be arrested simply for slander and libel.

Now after I exposed you for being wrong, you add there must have been an extortion charge. Are we suppose to believe you now???

Well you did not forget to mention she was jailed and lost her home. How could you forget to mention there was an extortion charge?

Obviously the case you cited was neither about slander or libel...It is about EXTORTION. As an expert you should have known the difference.

Your attempt at INTIMIDATING me into not speaking my mind has FAILED miserably. I have been around the block a lot longer than you have and apparently understand your area of EXPERTISE better than you do.

I assure you I also understand the area of LIBEL and SLANDER much better than you do.

Furthermore, this is not a completely free of edit or censorship blog. The previous and current moderators publish what they see fit and appropriate. They review every blog before it is published. They are careful what they publish. By controlling what is published here as opposed to say Greta Wire which publishes anything, they have taken on the ultimate responsiblity for libel from the poster or blogger. The poster or blogger becomes secondarily libel while the Naperville Sun becomes primarily libel. In Greta Wire the poster is primarily libel and Greta may not be liable at all. Greta Wire and Fox News would not run an open blog site if they thought they could be liable for slander and libel on their blog site which is rampant and almost non-stop. They understand the courts do not give much weight to anything said on a blog site especially by an anonymous person about another anonymous person or even any real person.

DF has been libeled here hundreds of times. He has a civil rights attorney. Has he sued anyone? No! Will he sue anyone? No! He knows from his attorney Sean Collins you can't. He was probably just told to ignore the blog site and he pretty much has. A son has made a comment or two to respond to outright lies that his Dad drinks. If you feel you are libeled on a blog site and you feel it carries any weight you come on the blog site to prove your accuser wrong.

If Margo Ely and the city council feel they did not squander and waste taxpayer money in the Napergate and DF cases, they can come on here and challege those who are challenging them. They have never come on for obvious reason. How is Margo going to explain paying legal fees amounting to 5 full time attorneys working for a full year on a HE SAID SHE SAID insignificant case that was about BIG EGOS.

In the very unlikely event someone would sue over a comment by an anonymous bloggers, the Sun would be liable first since they determine what is ultimately published on this blog site.

Many people have told lies on this blog site for over 2 years now. No one has sued anyone and no one will sue anyone. Most blog sites are NOT deemed to be credible. One day laws may change.

If one called Margo Ely a crook, corrupt and accused her of wrongfully stealing money in the print edition of the Sun, I suspect she will have a very strong lawsuit.....assuming the accuser has some money. Most losers who would say such libelous things are usually uneducated and penniless.

If one calls on her to resign on this blog site because that person feels she did not do a good job in handling the legal bills behind the DF Case, that is perfectly appropriate. Even if he or she was wrong, that is not grounds for a lawsuit. I feel strongly that spending more than 130,000 dollars to fight a 130,000 lawsuit borders on utter stupidity. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

Most bloggers on this site are simply parakeets who can not think but are only capable of making NOISE. Need I say more. I do not think you are a parkeet, Experienced, as others but I do think you lack credibilty, knowledge and expertise while claiming you have them. Sorry to be a little harsh on you. At least you are making an attempt to debate as opposed to those who are simply blowing their HORNS.

By Fed Up With The Noise on March 30, 2009 11:56 AM

Actually, I got the response I expected. When you call someone out for making outlandish statements, you normally get that type of a response.

But, I did neglect to say that in the engagement I just finished there was also an extortion attempt which resulted in the conviction. That was my error. We are forensic experts and tracked the defendant through her emails, turning our results over to the county attorney.

As to the Texas case, go here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090210/0337353715.shtml

To Experienced:

Don't even both trying to make any kind of response to "Legal Fees will be over 2 million". Logic, your personal expertise, knowledge and reality will never have any bearing on the matter at hand. This person, under this handle, and a multitude of others, is a self proclaimed expert on just about every topic that can be thought of. If you disagree with them, this person will insult you, claim you are mentally defective, illiterate, uneducated, childish and certainly not in their league intellectually. Many of us have seen this time and time again. If you respond in any way that might be considered "hostile", they will claim you attacked them and look to the moderator for vindication and support. While many are interested in what you have to say, don't fall into the trap being set for you.

By Experienced on March 29, 2009 8:12 PM
By Legal Fees will be over 2 million on March 29, 2009 2:41 PM

Well, so long as you are comfortable with your accusations. However, please remember that the internet is no longer anonymous. I just finished an engagement where we tracked down someone who was slandering a business through use of a throw away email account and thought that she could never be traced. She was, she was prosecuted, she's in jail, she was sued, she lost her house.


It seems to me like you have failed in your efforts to debate me. My points are difficult to argue with. Now you in essence publish a post with intimidation in mind. You are trying to frighten me. You want me to be quiet.

My suspicians are that you are an attorney who works for the City of Naperville and is trying to protect it. You also are not a very smart attorney.

You claim you tracked someone for slandering a business and threw her in jail. Sorry, but slander is not a criminal offense and is not a jailable offense. Slander is a civil offense. And also slander is the wrong word here. Libel is the correct word because it was in e-mail which is in writing and not verbal.

As I said, I have been involved with over 25 law firms in my life. I am very familiar with slander and libel laws. I am very familiar and aware that I can be traced. I write with all that in mind.

Questioning corruption is not accusing one of corruption. Stating almost all law firms pad their bills is an opinion and not an accusation. I have not stated or named any speicific law firm that padded its billing hours, even though I am certain most do. I used the word almost to protect myself. You can use other words like "appear" and "seeem" to protect yourself from lawsuits which are more common in print edition but are extremely rare from content on a blog site by anonymous bloggers. You can use the word improprieties instead of corruption to also protect yourself. That is why I use the former word often in my posts.

I have called for Margo Ely to resign. That is my right. I called for her resignation because in my opinion she did not do a good job controlling the legal fees from the outside law firms. That is my strong opinion. I am entitled to my opinion and stick with it. I did not call her INCOMPETENT. I stated she is not doing a good job controlling these out of house law firms who are probably milking us. Using words like probably protect you from libel while allowing you to get your point across. I choose my words very carefully. Sometimes, when I don't choose my words carefully or the Moderator feels like I have neared the line of libel, he does not post my blogs. He has done that often. He does not publish many of my posts with no explanation. I suspect he feels I am getting near the line and lately I don't even question him. The last one I published involved some banana references that had possible second meanings and I am sure he will recall deleting them.

So besides being very careful, we have an excellent moderator who understands libel much better than most of the bloggers who provides another layer of protection not only to me but to all bloggers. While I know I don't libel, I don't mind the extra level of protection he provides. There is always another way to say something. For those who want to make accusations and are worried, just state them in a question format and you will be alright. Don't be intimidated by folks like EXPERIENCED who use these tactics because they know the truth and facts are against them. It is their last resort to win a debate by attempting to frighten you...lol at them.

When I have made accusations, they were cleverly written in the question format. If you ask questions you can not be accused of libel or slander while getting your point across very well. If you review my blogs that is what I have done. Stating that I suspect the outside law firms padded their bills is not accusing them of padding their bills. It is saying I am suspicious based on common sense and asked the Naperville Sun to issue a Notice to Produce on these records and possibly investigate. To futher protect myself, I have not named any of these law firms deliberately. They need to prove damages to their reputation to collect damages. How can you damage a reputation without even throwing a name and by only stating you are very suspicious???

In reality, very few bloggers nationwide have ever been sued. No blogger has been jailed for libel as you falsely allege. Sue me for stating you are falsely alleging and let us see how far that will go in court. Again only a stupid person will believe you can go to prison for lying on a blog site. Now if you lie to the FBI or under oath in the witness box of a court room, yes you can go to jail. That is perjury and jailable. Martha Stewart spent 6 months in jail for lying under oath. Can you name the blogger that went to jail for slandering as you state and lost her home? Can you give us a link? I doubt you can because I suspect you are LYING!!!

Also, a public entity like Naperville does not have the level of protection of a private entity like a small business or individual. Elected officials need to have thick skin and be ready to deal with accusations against them in public and not in a court room. They lose almost all their immunity when they become public officials or public servants and work for City Hall.

I have a right to allege that public officials of the City of Naperville were borderline stupid to spend 2,000,000 dollars defending a 130,000 suit that could have initially been settled with a simple apology and no money. That is not libel. That is my personal opinion which I feel strongly and will repeat. It is an opinion. I did not say city officials stole money. I said they wasted taxpayer money. In my opinion they did and if they want to sue me for my statement, let them be my guests. I will countersue and empty city coffers at 10 times the rate DF emptied them. The last thing City Officials want is another lawsuit on their hands.

The Napergate Man ripped into the legal dept with full page ad after full page ad. His Napergate ads had circulation of 22,000 and readership of 50,000. He undoubtedly damaged the reputaion of the legal dept and took away all it crediblity. The city never sued him. He bought 100 pages of ads and attacked City Hall every which way you can imagine. I assume his attorneys advised him you can attack City Hall and feel comfortable within some wide limits...and he did just that.

I am communicating with about 20 bloggers on this site. If as you stated, assume for a second I am damaging the reputations of these law firms and they can sue me, and assume they step forward. What damages can they prove against me ASSUMING for a second you are right? I damaged their reputation amongst 20 bloggers on this site. They need to prove that one of these bloggers may have used them. Then they need to prove how much that blogger would have spent with them if I did not wrongfully damage their reputation. If they win, I would be liable for losses that they can prove I caused. They need to prove that blogger did not use their law firm because of lies I told to damage their credibility and reputation. All I have been saying is law firms in general pad their bills. That general statement is VERY ACCURATE. Are you trying to say EXPERIENCED that the 3 law firms that the City of Naperville used have never padded a bill to a client and especially a municipality with deep pockets?
If you are trying to say that, I say you are very NAIVE.

And in reality, they would never dare to sue anyone for such an allegation. They would never want to open their books in such litigation. My attorneys would rip their books apart and find cases where they padded. They would find former clients that sued their law firms for padded fees. I have personnaly taken 2 law firms to court for padding and won both of my cases. Other law firms, I just decided not to pay their padded bills and challenged them to sue me. They never sused me.

This is an area most law firms would never want to discuss. It is an area where the law firms do not want to open a can of worms. It is a TABOO area.

You can bust these law firms easily at times. Sometimes the attorney get carried away and bills for 120 hours in a week to many different clients when he only worked a total of 40 or 50 hours that week. Sometimes they bill while vacationing. Sometimes they bill you while traveling and then they are on the phone with another client while travelling and bill him for the length of the phone call thus billing 2 clients for the same period of time....or double billing. Many of these issues I am discussing came up in some of my own court battles. One of their favorite methods or tactics of milking clients is charging you for 15 minutes mininum for a phone call even if it only lasted a minute. While they say it is company policy, courts have ruled it is padding. It is milking. Padding bills is not OK just because corrupt policy may say it is OK.

Anyway, I can ramble on. I think you get the point Experienced. If you think you can intimidate me into quieting down you are very wrong. As I said, I am assuming you are a City Attorney. If you felt I had libeled you or your dept. you would have sued me without issuing these hollow threats on an anonyous blog site.

In summary, you sound like a real wimp with your hollow threats. Be a man or a woman and debate. If you fail, withdraw, without issuing hollow threats. Chow!

To Whom it May Concern,

I think you are mistaken. Read the article in the Naperville Sun that was written about Napergate about 2 years ago. It clearly stated the case ended in 2001 with his civil rights victory that came a few years after his victory in the Illinois Appellant Courts.

The court cases may have ended in 1995 or a little after that, but the Appeals continued much longer after that. Appeals usually take years. His civil rights case if I recall correctly went from Federal Court to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and back to Federal Court and back to the 7th Cirucuit Court of Appeals where they finally ruled 2-1 in his favor. This was confirmed by a link Blogger TB provided for all of us to read that he dug up from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Again, I speak from memory but I am sure TB can confirm that he posted the link to this court ruling on this blog site. That is where I got my accurate information from. Most people know I have been blogging on this site for over 2 years and have learned a lot from credible fellow bloggers on this site.

The article in the Sun was well researched and approved by Ted Slovick and Jim Lynch. They were both involved behind the scenes with the reporter. Maybe the Moderator can provide a link to it and clear the controversy. I write based on memory and I am known to have a near photographic memory. Not a perfect memory but a very good memory that I trust.

Taking something Ted said out of context on a blog site or from memory does not make it factual assuming he even said that. While Ted was capable of making mistakes, he rarely makes them.

The Napergate ads ended in 2001. I am certain of that. The Napergate Man ended his Napergate ads with his victories and moved on to a quiet life.

So I think you are wrong on your accounts of all the Napergate Trials. You may be only familiar with a few. As I have stated there were many that went through different court systems including Dupage County, the Illinois Liquor Control Commission, and Federal Court. If you have any experience in the judicial system, it is very common for appellant courts to sit on a case for 2 or 3 years especially if it is not a death or life situation.

Once the lower courts returned his liquor licenses to him, he was able to operate in a normal fashion. I believe he got his new license at RT 59 in 1995 and the city proceeded with its appeals to reverse the lower court rulings. The city failed in its attempts over many years and surrendered in an executive closed session by cutting any further funding to the legal dept regarding the Napergate Cases. The city council pretty much told the legal dept. it was time to swallow your ego and move on to bigger and better things. City Attorney resigned shortly after the Napergate Trials. No official reason was given, but I have my suspicians.

The city surrendered in a very similar way that Louisville surrendered to Michigan State with about 10 minutes to go in yesterday's basketball game. Sometimes you know when the situation is hopeless and you surrender and stop fighting.

By Legal Fees will be over 2 million on March 29, 2009 2:41 PM

Well, so long as you are comfortable with your accusations. However, please remember that the internet is no longer anonymous. I just finished an engagement where we tracked down someone who was slandering a business through use of a throw away email account and thought that she could never be traced. She was, she was prosecuted, she's in jail, she was sued, she lost her house. And, there is currently pending a slander suit in Texas against posters in a blog similar to this one. The judge ordered the blog owner to disclose the IP addresses in question and it's just a matter of time before the posters are identified just like we identified our emailer.

TO: Legal Fees

You stated "The Napergate Man assembled a group of attorneys who took on similar high powered law firms from Chicago betwen 1991-2001 that the in-house legal dept. of the City retained."

According to Ted Slowik, of the Naperville Sun on another thread of this blog, his case ENDED in 1995. I guess 1995 is between 1991 and 2001, but your statement is misleading.

Tim Leary,

I wondered when DF's coworkers from AT&T would weigh in here as I suspected he would not have been any easier to work with there than he has proven to be for the City Staff. What were the circumstances of his "retirement" if you don't mind my asking?

Legal Fees, etc. wrote:

So what you are saying is if someone sues you and you manage to pay 2 million dollars to defeat a case that would at most have cost you 100k, you would declare yourself victorious.

Maybe if you spent less than 100k to defeat a 100k lawsuit you could claim a minor victory. If you spent 10k to defeat a 100k lawsuit you may be able to claim a major victory.

This seems like a logical statement to you because you are convinced that Doug Furstenau is completely in the right from beginning to end, even to the extent of thinking that it was okay for him to interfere with Officer Hull, whose job it was to clear cars from the parade route regardless of whether the signs were posted. From your perspective, the city should have done the right thing (as you perceive it) by giving him his $130K (I believe that was the actual figure) and his apology and moved on. You can't understand that the powers that be in city hall and the NPD might think that they did nothing wrong, that no apology is owed, and that it is not in the best long term interests of the city to pay money to people who launch baseless (in their view) lawsuits---even if it costs more money to defend this suit than it would to make the suit go away. It also would undermine the morale of the NPD if the city not only did not stand behind police officers who were doing their duty, but we even ask them to apologize for doing so.

I will not comment on the remainder of your post, as it contained nothing of substance.

Not Every Attorney is a Crook and Experienced,

I would agree with you that not every single attorney is a crook, but almost every attorney pads his bills at one time or another. It is too easy to do making it very tempting. Every attorney has down days where he does not feel like working, but the law firm expects him to come up with his 8 or 10 hours of billing. If he does not, he will eventually be terminated. Most will choose to pad over termination. The bosses know they pad and look the other way.

Like I said I have dealt with 25 attorneys and law firms in my life and I have caught them all padding their bills at one time or another. In very different degrees of course. Some to a very high degree and some to a very low degree.

Yes, it is a federal crime to pad your bill against a governmental body. But whose watching. Bearnie Madoff told the world the SEC watches everything and no one can get away with anything in his field. Well he got away with 64.9 billion dollars and the JOKE was on people like you who call themselves EXPERIENCED.

You need to smell the coffee EXPERIENCED. You are very knowledgable and I have no doubt you know this padding is very common. I suspect you may even be an attorney.

Again, if an attorney does 28 hours of research and study on an issue and bills for 78 hours, there is no chance of ever being caught. If somebody ever questions him, he could say he was being thorough. If some one takes him to court and sues him, he could say he reads slow. Thus, there is absolutely no risk to being caught.

In summary, the City of Naperville was negligent in not using caps and limits on these law firms. Possibly negotiating fixed fees.

The law firms have already billed over a million so I have a right to question their bills. Much more is in the pipeline.

You have ignored my allegation that 2 million dollars amounts to 5 attorneys working full time on the Furtenau case for a year if they were charging 200 dollars per hour. I say this is IMPOSSIBLE based on common sense. I say it is ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY based on common sense. What do you both say? I am sure you guys have COMMON SENSE and REASON. Can you guys agree that at least an investigation should be launched?

I have not accused but asked a lot of questions. I am suspicious. I think there needs to be an investigation.

The Chicago Ancel Glink law firm was used in the Napergate Trials as a the lead law firm. So you obviously are someone who knows something...you may be an insider in City Hall for all I know.

While you say it is possible the Napergate Man only spent $74,000 over 10 years as his Federal Lawsuit documented in detail, you do not explain how the City of Naperville ended up spendig 10 million dollars over the same period of time. The Napergate Man was on the defensive for the first 8 years and had to pay for his legal fees. In the last 2 years during his civil rights trial he was on the offensive and I assume attorneys took it for a contingency based on his numerous and unanimous victories in the court system which ended with a 3-0 victory in the Appellant Court.

My suspicians remain. My call for Margo Ely to resign remains. My call for an investigation remains. My call for the Naperville Sun to order a Notice of Produce on these legal fees remains.

That is my opinion. What is yours?

Billy K,
Furstenau has done some people good. He did all his buddies in Utah good when he left there to come here. He did us ATT employees good when he "retired." Forced out would be what everybody else calls it. He will do good by the residents of Naperville when he moves out of here.
I know this guy as I not only worked with him but our sons played football together at NN. He cares not what other people think, It's all about him! Taking the city to federal court because he lost is bid for state senate? That takes arrogance to a whole new level... even for him.
This man has no redeeming qualities that I would want any of my children or grandchildren to learn. Even those sweaters he wears, Connie needs to tell him the 80's are over.

I had a friend who met a Chicago Attorney on match.com and he spent 2 hours a day exchanging e-mails with him for nearly 2 months before they finally met in person. He told her he was billing for all his hours at work while e-mailing romantic letters to her. It is a very common issue in the real world


L.F. I have an attorney friend who admitted to me that he never padded billing hours because this is illegal, and he was too committed to his profession to take such a chance. I have another friend who has an attorney friend who said the same thing.

I can't help who you or your friends apparently hang around with, or who you consider to be a friend, but if you have anything other than speculation and third party stories that your friends tell you when they are drunk, I'm sure we'd like to hear them.

So, you believe that the firms are over billing the city more hours than actually spent. In effect you are accusing the firms of federal crimes: depriving a governmental body partially funded by federal money of true services; and mail fraud by doing so by sending inflated billings through the mail. [Did you ever read the book "The Firm" by Grisham? It's even a bigger crime when you do it when representing a governmental body.]

Those are pretty serious charges to be leveling without actual proof.

And, you believe that the City has not caught the over billing, even though I believe you stated in the past that the City has not paid these bills as of yet.

Another thing, there is a big difference between the way plaintiff counsel bill and defense counsel bill. Plaintiff counsel in cases like you refer bill only costs hoping that their big payday will come when they are successful and either receive a contingent fee or have the defendants pay their actual bills. The plaintiffs only pay the costs during the time of litigation: transcripts, court filing fees, experts, etc. Plaintiff counsel in a collateral matters sometimes are willing to reduce fees also in hopes of the big payday at the end of the case. In a 10 year case the costs could easily amount to $74,000. I would like to see a break down of the amount between attorney fees for the liquor license appeals and court costs for his civil rights litigation.

Defense counsel have no hope of contingent fees. Therefore, they must get their money from their clients. Many entities have liability insurance to cover litigation costs. The City, however, is self insured and pays those costs themselves. Some self insured cities have umbrella policies to guard against monumental losses and fees. It would appear that the City does not, at least no one has referred to an umbrella policy yet. Cities that are self insured many times will negotiate a lower than market fee arrangement with a firm. It's what insurance companies do also. When the City was represented by Ancel Glink, the firm charged less than market rates because the firm knew that they would be getting a lot of business and would make up for it with quantity of cases. When a city, or really anyone, waits to retain counsel until there is actual litigation, they lose the bargaining chip to negotiate fees down. In effect the firm is saying pay us our normal rates or go elsewhere. But, in most cases, there is no elsewhere because all the defense firms won't negotiate fees when litigation is threatened or filed.

By Experienced on March 28, 2009 8:47 PM
By Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on March 28, 2009 6:04 PM

So, is it your position that the firms performed unnecessary work on behalf of the city and defendants, or that their billing rates were too high?


Yes, that is partially what I am saying. That dollars were wasted. It could have been done a lot cheaper.

Other things I suspect is the padding of legal bills which is common in the legal world. For example a law firm can say we did 78 hour of research on this issue. They could have only done 28 hours of research. If they charge 400 dollars an hour that item alone would result in a milking of 20,000 dollars. I met attorneys in bars who bragged about spending time on match.com or erotica.com and admitted while intoxicated they billed the clients for their time on these sites. It is difficult to control attorneys that charge you by the hour and have no limits or caps.

It is much wiser to enter into a fixed fee agreement and if that is not possible cap them. If they go over their cap which is ususlly based on a reasonable estimate, the services above that cap are free. The law firms will still be motivated as their reputations are at stake. Law firms like to win which brings in repeat business. They also want your repeat business. Losers lose their reputation and do not get repeat business.

And when the Napergate Man can spends 74,000 and city needs to spend 10,000,000 while they are fighting each other in the same courtrooms, before the same judges, and in front of the same juries, one has to ask why? His attorneys could not have been that bad since they won every case against the city who used 3 powerful out-of-house law firms in addition to in-house staff attorneys Michael Roth and Francis Cuneo.

I think the Naperville Sun should demand all these billing records in the DF case through a NOTICE TO PRODUCE and review them. I bet they will find all the padding that Margo Ely never cared to find or control.

Two million dollars at 200 dollars per hour is 10,000 hours. How could a touching incident downtown that lasted a few minutes involve 10,000 hours of legal work. That is 5 attorneys working full time on the case for one full year. I just think that is impossible and unnessessary. Common sense has to take hold at some point. Why is City Attorney Margo Ely not using common sense and going over these bills with a tooth comb? I bet if she was paying these bills out of her own pocket she would go over them with a tooth comb. But since it is "easy come easy go" taxpayer money she probably has better things to do.

How much time did these attorneys spend on the golf course while billing the City of Naperville? How much time did these attorneys spend at Gentleman's Clubs while billing the City of Naperville? How many hours did they spend on match.com and sex.com while billing the City of Naperville? Were their traveling expenses legit?

I had a friend who met a Chicago Attorney on match.com and he spent 2 hours a day exchanging e-mails with him for nearly 2 months before they finally met in person. He told her he was billing for all his hours at work while e-mailing romantic letters to her. It is a very common issue in the real world. When it comes to how much research a law firm really does, no one really knows. They will pad the research to the extent you can afford. The City of Naperville can afford a lot so I suspect the legal bills were padded extensively for this "he said, she said" ridiculous case that both parties need to take responsibility for bringing forward.

While they had fun fighting, we the taxapyers took it up the WAZOOO!

I think you and I are almost on the same page EXPERIENCED. I appreciate your open mind and your willingness to hear me out. I have dealt with over 25 lawyers in my life time so I am very well versed in their tactics to milk their clients. You can call me EXPERIENCED to if you would like. Have a nice Sunday!

By Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on March 28, 2009 6:04 PM

So, is it your position that the firms performed unnecessary work on behalf of the city and defendants, or that their billing rates were too high?


So what you are saying is if someone sues you and you manage to pay 2 million dollars to defeat a case that would at most have cost you 100k, you would declare yourself victorious.

Maybe if you spent less than 100k to defeat a 100k lawsuit you could claim a minor victory. If you spent 10k to defeat a 100k lawsuit you may be able to claim a major victory.

But if you are willing to spend 20 times the cost of a lawsuit to defeat it, I think it is you who has his head in a deep hole. I am assuming you can relate to city officials because you have an ego and a chip on your shoulders just like your buddies in City Hall.

I guess people like you with egos will spend their lifetime savings on defending a "frivilous" lawsuit and don't care if you end up in a plastic tent next to the homeless guy downtown. I think talk is cheap, JQP. You are babbling here and would never be as stupid as your buddies in City Hall. At least, based on the recommendation your buddy TB has given you for being measured and reasoned. My advice to you, JQP, is to stop preaching unless you are willing to practice what you preach. You are promoting stupidity on this blog site, yet you would never participate in this stupidiity you endorse. Let us go back to being measured and reasoned. Thank you!

By Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on March 27, 2009 10:10 PM

Could you elaborate on the statement that the outside firms milked the City?


Very easily. They overcharged for their services and for what they accomplished.

I know many people do not like to talk about or refer to the Napergate Case but here is why there is relevance which helps us understand what attorneys are worth and/or should be paid.

The Napergate Man assembled a group of attorneys who took on similar high powered law firms from Chicago betwen 1991-2001 that the in-house legal dept. of the City retained. Some gentleman on this blog site named TB did some research on the Napergate Cases which were numerous and found out he had only spent $74,000 during the offensive the city launched on him while he was on the defensive. In the offensive he launched on the city it appears he had attorneys working on a contingency in his civil rights trial.

From what I recall the City of Naperville went after him in 3 different court rooms in DuPage simultaneously. In one case over a bottle of Korbel they had 9 sessions in one courtroom over 2 years before the city finally dismissed the case. The Napergate Man offered them nothing. In another courtroom they fought the technicalities of a sting operation which resulted in a lengthy court battle that was appealed to the Illinois Appellant Court where the city was defeated 3-0. A third tier involved some battery charge which was dismissed without a trial. And there were hearings that lasted weeks in City Hall in a specially set up Kangaroo Court. And those battles were appealed to the Illinois Liquor Commission where the city suffered more defeats.

The point I am trying to make is how did the Napegate Man manage 10 years of battles for a little over $74,000. How is it that the City needs to spend $2,000,000 on a Fustenau Case that never even made it to jury selection? Why did they need to spend 10 million dollars fighting the Napergate Man when he only spent $74,000 fighting them.

The answer is simple. The Napergate Man watched his attorneys and did not let them milk him. Plus they probably knew he did not have 2 million or 10 million cash sitting around for them to separate from him.

The hot shot attorneys the city hired in both cases knew the city had deep pockets. They knew the city would pay 2 million or 10 million to protect their egos and reputation. They know the money would be a shared expense of 50,000 households in Naperville and thus have no serious impact in bankrupting anyone. They knew they could get away with it. And in fact in both cases they got away with it.

Most attorneys really don't charge what a case is worth. They charge what a client is willing to pay. What a client can afford to pay. They feel out a client for his abilities and capabilites to pay. The city was foolish by not capping the fees of these law firms. The city was foolish for not negotiating a fixed fee base based on stages the case may have progressed to. The city was foolish for not trying to negotiate lower hourly rates. All these goals were attainable and the city failed in its duties to protect the taxpayers from being milked. That is why I have called for Margo Ely to resign. Former City Attorney Michael Roth resigned shortly after the defeat of the city in the Napergate Trials for reasons that were never revealed. Obvioulsy the city was not happy with the 10 million he spent and his loss in every battle including the final civil rights battle in which the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 in favor of the Napergate Man.(Again this case was posted by Blogger TB on this blog site, sometimes an avid city supporter.)

It should be noted that the city did not use the same 3 law firms from the Napergate Trials. They hired 3 new law firms. They were not going with former losers. Again relevance of the Napergate Case as which Chicago Law firms the city would select.

While the city is relcutantly admitting the true cost of the Furstenau Trials and it is apparent when it is all done and said, they will approach 2 million dollars, the Napergate Costs were never revealed to anyone. No one to this day knows what they were. No one was ever held accountable. And the reason I mention them often, is because 70% of the City Staff from those days are still employed gainfully with the city despite the lack of transparency in that case.

The Napergate Costs were made a big issue by the Napergate Man, the Naperville Sun and many residents. While people may not see the significance, it could be very possible the city learned a lesson that it does not pay to bury the records when you lose a case or spend too much money....you will be called out. Maybe, that is why we are finally being told the truth in the Furstenau Case.


PS. It seemed ironic that a liquor store owner was able to determine his legal fees were $74,171.01 or some number like that yet a city with over 1000 employees could not determine what they spent on this Napergate Man despite having both a finance and legal dept. Obviously both those depts are not worth much. One can't add and subtract and the other one is always hiring outside legal law firms despite having an in-housel legal dept of about a dozen employeess that include several lawyers. Keep defending the city all you want. They will never learn to be frugal with people like you folks praising them for being wasteful. At some point you nice folks blogging here have to understand wasteful habits at City Hall result in higher real estate taxes on your homes. Hold your city accountable for every dime it spends. That is why I admire the Napergate Man. He held the city accountable for wasting taxpayer dimes. That is why the city hated him. They wanted to give themselves big raises, fat pensions, and full health benefits. He called them out unlike the local media.

At this very moment the City Council is trying to give near 4% raises to city employees. They appear to have the 5 establishment votes necessary. Does anyone see the Naperville Sun, Daily Herald or Chicago Tribune raising even an eyebrow? Does any other blogger on this site realize the correlation between wasteful spending and higher annual real estate taxes? Does anyone care? Why is everyone more interested in taking me on than City Hall? City Hall is the issue...not ME!!!

By Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on March 27, 2009 10:10 PM

Could you elaborate on the statement that the outside firms milked the City? If they made their motion to dismiss as their first pleading and refiled it as their response to the amended complaint but the judge didn't rule on the motions for almost a year but ordered discovery to proceed, how did the firms milk the city? What else could they do but proceed to respond to discovery and propound discovery?

Also, how does your statement that "Judges usually don't hold you for liable for the other sides fees especially since a case is not determined to be frivilous [sic] if a judge allows it to move forward and a judge is assigned" hold up when you consider 42 USC Sec. 1988 and the cases decided thereunder? Your statement might be true in an Illinois state court, but is it true in a civil rights action filed in federal court?

What I find interesting is that when the case got down to the true issue that started it all--whether the police acted without probable cause--the plaintiff baled. From what I can tell, the issue of whether the police had qualified immunity was the only thing that stood in the way of the case going to trial.

Legal Fees, etc. wrote:

They were at the mercy of the judge. Judges usually don't hold you for liable for the other sides fees especially since a case is not determined to be frivilous if a judge allows it to move forward and a judge is assigned.


The city was as defeated as Fursteanu as they forfeited the right to recover 2 million dollars in LEGAL FEES. That is a major defeat no matter how you want to slice, dice or split the peas.

Just when it looks like you're starting to come around, you go right back into your hole. By your own admission, the odds of the city recouping it's legal fees in this case were not good. The city only ever had one goal in this case: make Furstenau's claim disappear. They could accomplish their task either by going the distance and having the jury vote their way, or by getting DF to drop his case. Furstenau dropped his case. Mission accomplished (and not in a GW Bush kind of way).

It was never the city's goal to make DF pay; that possibility would only have been icing on the cake in the remote case that it should occur. But it wasn't a goal, and your whole argument that this is a defeat for the city rests on the disingenuous assumption that it was. In fact, since DF DID drop, the city ended up spending a LOT less than it would have if the case had continued. So rather than a defeat, or even a draw, this outcome is a major victory for the city.


By Experienced on March 27, 2009 9:04 PM

The only other possibility was that the plaintiff thought that he would lose the motion and wanted to get out before he was stuck with attorney fees.


This is a more likely scenario. There is always a risk of losing in any court battle and Furstenau's risk was undoubtedly increasing.

The attorney fees approaching 2 million began to bother SC and DF. They were at the mercy of the judge. Judges usually don't hold you for liable for the other sides fees especially since a case is not determined to be frivilous if a judge allows it to move forward and a judge is assigned.

But the risk is always there. Judges have wide latitudes and can almost do as they please and it is hard to reverse them in appellant courts.

No matter what Furtenau or the City thought of their cases, neither had a smoking gun like the video tape in the Napergate Case that could not be defeated after 10 years of battles and 10 million dollars.

Both sides surrendered in the Furstenau Case.

The city was as defeated as Fursteanu as they forfeited the right to recover 2 million dollars in LEGAL FEES. That is a major defeat no matter how you want to slice, dice or split the peas.

The only winners in this case are the outside law firms that milked the Naperville Taxpayers for 2 million dollars. Trust me on that one point. You seem like a very reasonable debator who gives and takes in order to determine the truth. I respect that.

The city, the police, DF and Sean Collins all lost. The taxpayers took it up the wazooooo. End of Story!

Dearest Tim:

Might it be possible, just maybe, that...other than this event...perhaps DF has done a couple of good things for his family and his community. Would it be possible, that similarly to your personality, that maybe just once DF became frustrated with a misguided authority figure and tried to express a more reasonable way to handle a situation? Is that a possibillity for you to consider? I've already said he went too far. But is there any room in your absolutes that just maybe he got frustrated, dealing with what is a fairly obvious group of insiders and vented, then decided to strike back. Is it possible that perhaps, even just once, you have experienced such frustration and maybe, just once, acted improperly and unprofessionally and decided to look for some way to set things right?

Did he do it right?... No .....But he was acquitted of the crime "they" alleged he committed and then he reacted to a letter that blemished his character.

I've drawn you in with my previous posts to display that you would react the same way!

By Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on March 27, 2009 1:54 PM

If the mental examination was not the impetus, then what, pray-tell, was the impetus for the plaintiff to throw in the towel at this time? The only other thing currently pending before the court is the motion by the police officers and chief for summary judgement (judgment on their behalf based upon uncontroverted facts). Plaintiff had responded thereto already and the matter was at issue before the judge. The only other possibility was that the plaintiff thought that he would lose the motion and wanted to get out before he was stuck with attorney fees. That would mean that plaintiff doubted the main issue that brought the matter to court in the first place: whether the arrest was without probable cause. It would appear that the officers were arguing qualified immunity because the arrest was pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge who found probable cause at the time the warrant was issued.

Billy K,
I am more than sure of myself. Furstenau is a bully. End of story. Case closed. It's over. Fat lady singing. Holy hand-grenade IE: mental exam, blew this case to bits!


I am not wasting a $1.04 cents of my hard earned money. I can buy my dog a whole box of dog bones from Jewel for a $1 plus tax.

Your theory of the mental examination is ridiculous.

This mental examination was not to determeine if DF was sane or insane. If he was competent or incompetent. If he had loose bearings or properly fastened bearings.

It was simply to determine if had experienced mental aguish. Anyone facing the possibility of 15 years will experience mental anguish unless he is a crab or lobster. Hopefully you are neither, Sir.

There was no stroke of genious here by the hired guns.

However, they did exhibit a stroke of genious by separating the taxpayers from 2 million dollars of their hard earned money.

By Anonymous on March 26, 2009 8:38 PM

Further, I took the time to review the docket in the case. The very first pleading filed by the defendants in this case was a motion to dismiss which was granted by the judge but he gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint was filed and the response by all of the defendants was another motion to dismiss. However, the judge did not rule on the motion and allowed the discovery phase of the case to continue while pleadings were considered. The docket disclosed that during this time numerous depositions were taken. Briefs were filed concerning the motions to dismiss as well as other motions. Finally, the judge started to rule on the motions initially filed in the case with the backing of the discovery.

So, the defense attorneys did, in fact, immediately file motions to dismiss. They weren't ruled upon for almost a year, however. During that time, discovery continued racking up legal fees and costs. Go read the file, it's on the district court's website. You have to register and pay $.08 a page. It will cost you $1.04 to view the docket.

By Anonymous on March 26, 2009 8:38 PM

"All an attorney with half a brain would have had to tell the Judge is they criticised him publicly after bringing his lawsuit and he added them on out of sheer vindictiveness. He would have dismissed the case no questions asked."

Kind sir, this is a factual issue of what happened and why it happened. In Federal Court a judge will only entertain a motion based upon a factual issue after discovery is held on the point. The attorneys can't just tell the judge that something happened, they have to prove it and give the other side the opportunity to discover if the position is not discredited by other facts. Failure to do so will likely wind up with the matter being reversed on appeal with increased fees.

Have you ever contemplated that the attorneys representing the individual defendants in the amended complaint were taking a back position while allowing the main firm to represent the city? That they then merely joined in the filings by the other firm except where their clients were integrally involved? That their only real work was to get the cases against their clients dismissed and let the other firms worry about the main case?

Again, what got this case to settle was not the growing victories by the defendants on the collateral issues. What got the case dismissed was the brilliant idea by the attorneys for the city to embarrass the plaintiff by having him submit to a mental examination. A stroke of pure genius. The plaintiff did not want to submit to the exam, so he threw in the towel.

Tim Leary,

Like Ms. Franklin sang...R-E-S-P-E-C-T

"none"........"from anyone"......."ever"

Pretty sure of yourself aren't you?

Are you the Great Wizard of OZ ???

The omnipotent Timothy Leary.....I think Floyd the barber was right about you. You have been experimenting with pyschodelics again.
Too many mushrooms in your omelet again, eh?

legal fees

You dodged me again.! but at least your last post was a BIT shorter. Keep working on it!

I dont care about napergate. this blog isnt about napergate. you are about napergate. every post you write is about napergate. (Did you know that many of the current SSRI's available on the market can help with OCD? check it out!)

MY last post was about DF deciding to cost the city a bunch of money. His fault. His decision. He wanted it that way. There is no way to dodge it, get around it, or sugar coat it. He did not care about the taxpayer. Just his ego. Remember that post? 9:39 AM. Go read it again. Iron-clad, irrefutable logic. really, some of my best work I think.

Try and keep the response under 300 words. I bet you cant.


I don't have a law degree from any university.

But I have had my share of real life experiences.

A Judge can dismiss a case at anytime including the first time it is shown to him if he feels it is frivilous. Before any discovery is done.

He can dismiss it the second time he sees it or he can dismiss it after discovery. He can dismiss it hours before the trial starts. He can also order a summary judgment after the plaintiff presents his case and before the defendent utters a single word. That amounts to a form of delayed dismissal.

Judges have wide powers. I think a judge would have dismissed the second batch that DF added without any discovery. All an attorney with half a brain would have had to tell the Judge is they criticised him publicly after bringing his lawsuit and he added them on out of sheer vindictiveness. He would have dismissed the case no questions asked. The latter 3 exercised their right to free speech against a publicly elected official and did not slander or libel him. Under the law, public officials can be criticised with very wide latitudes...much more than civilians. The latter 3 absolutey did nothing wrong and there was no need for discovery. If discovery was done before this case was presented to a judge for dismissal, I suspect the attorneys were trying to pad their bills which is very typical in the legal world. Attorneys always need to be watched. Most attorneys will take you to the cleaners if you give them an opportunity. More so criminal attorneys than civil attorneys as they have your liberty and freedom in the palm of their hands and you are at their mercy. But both are very capable.

Of course the judge would have dismissed the case of the latter 3 before discovery as it was obviously without merit and did not meet the minimum legal standards required to bring a case forward. So why spend all this money on outside lawyers. Why did Ms. Ely or someone on her staff at least not take a stab at it? The waste of taxpayer money was trully the travesty of justice in this case.

And the City of Naperville has to take responsibility for the waste of taxpayer funds since they let Mr. Furstenau off the hook in their negotiated settlement which is far from an outright dismissal. A heavy price was paid and the taxpayers paid it. Losing 2 million dollars can not be interpreted as a win for the City and its residents. Just think what that money could have been used for. How many homeless could have been fed. All the city had to do was offer a meaningless apology and swallow their egos.

Billy K,
"Furstenau seeks respect."
He can keep seeking all he wants, he gets none from anyone that has ever had to deal with him.

Billy K,

Interesting take. But it was DF's decision to run away from this case, not the city's.


By Anonymous on March 26, 2009 6:42 PM

I was just wondering when and where you received your law degree. Is it possible to gain a dismissal in Federal court under these circumstances without first going through the discovery process? Wasn't the reason why the defendants were dismissed was because the discovery showed that the plaintiff had no case? Did you read the judge's order?

By Get Real on March 26, 2009 5:12 PM
686 words.

And you didnt respond to my post.

And you used the word Napergate. Repeatedly.


Get Real,

Who do you think you are the Moderator hollering orders on this blog site. What arrogance you exemplify!

This is a free country. I can speak my mind.

The Naperville Sun published a 2 page article pointing out the relevances between the Napergate Case and Furstenua Case.

I see extreme relevance and lessons to be learned from both.

The lesson to be learned from both cases is if you are going to take on City Hall you better have a smoking gun and have the persistance to fight for 10 years.

Obviously the Napergate Man had what it takes. Furstenau unfortunately did not.

This is a good lesson for all citizens who want to take on City Hall. It should make citizens think twice about taking on City Hall especially if they don't have the goods. You need the goods to beat City Hall. Otherwise you will be defeated. That is the bottom line.

Some people may have thought it is easy to take on City Hall. Now they know it is not. They must understand that City Hall will spend whatever amount of money necessary to knock out any one who challenges its authority and/or political views. This is the message City Hall was sending with the Furstenau Case.

The Napergate Case was more about a city gone nuts. The man was confiscating more fake IDS from minors than all other liquor establishments COMBINED times a factor of either 5 or 6. The city tried to persuade the residents that he sold to minors while he was winning the top award in the nation for having the most responsible drinking sales campaign in the nation. They were trying to accuse him of selling to a minor for daring to use a sting operator to test his employees. It became apparent at the end they had gone after him for political reasons. The hard truth surfaced in the end after 10 years of court battles and 10 million dollars of taxpayer money expended, wasted and never accounted for.

Dick Furstenau may have also been treated in this manner because of his political views. We will never know as the incident unfortunately was not documented. Trying to charge a councilman with a felony for such a petty issue smells like a raccoon. The city was lucky this time because there was no smoking gun....no videotape if you will.

Look at how the police always win their cases of abuse all across the country. However, every time a videotape surfaces the police are always found guilty. What a coincidence? The police are not perfect. They commit many crimes but it is hard to bust them. They can get away with murder and have gotten away with murder....as long as there is no video tape in sight. (I am not speaking specifically of the NPD as I do not believe they have ever gotten away with murder....but other police departments nationwide who have gotten away with murder.)

To Whom it May Concern,

The reason this case took 2 years is because city retained attorneys wanted to make a mountain out of a moehill in order to make big bucks.

If it was that frivilous as many have claimed on this site, all they had to do is appear before the Judge and ask him to dismiss it and it would have been dismissed.

Obviously 3 defendents had nothing to do with the case and it was the stupidity of the city that they decided to spend so much money on these 3 indivdiuals who were added for vindictive reasons.

An attorney for $1000 for each one of these would have been able to dismiss the cases against the latter 3. He would have at most had to appear twice and since the cases were all up together he would have made $1500 for each appearance. Let face it the city wasted taxpayer money unnecessarily.

Hey JQP & Mark F,

DF is not "The Dark Knight"....he's the "killer rabbitt".

Margo & Borchard & PD thought he was just a "fury little rodent" but now after there's blood in the streets and millions have been spent in defense, I see them screaming...."run away, run away, run away!"

Now.... What is your quest?

DF seeks respect ...not the Holy Grail!

686 words.

And you didnt respond to my post.

And you used the word Napergate. Repeatedly.

Guess you arent up for either challenge, eh?

City Pensions are a Fraud on the Naperville Taxpayer, Facial Expression Should Be Captured & Legal Fees will be over 2 million

Another attempt of one person to blog as if many people care that much for this character. At least you're persistant.

Fees over 2,
Furstenau is not the only councilman to be against these raises. There are four councilmen that are against the raises as I read it in the paper. None of the councilmen that are up for re-election are against the raises, go figure.
Look! We agree on something.

To Whom it may Concern and all others,

Since you all seem to respond to what I am saying, it is an indication it has credence and relevance. You obviously are all disturbed by what I am saying.

Napergate has a lot of relevance here. The reason it has a lot of relevance it shows that the City of Naperville is willing and capable of railroading a politician or citizen it does not like. In the Napergate Case the railroading did not work due to a videotape that exposed the city was not being truthful. It did not matter how big the egos were or how much money City Officials were willing to pay to destroy a man who opposed city policies and was very vocal about them. Yes, he was willing to spend his own money and publish over 100 full page ads to expose improprieties and corruption in city hall. The city could not intimidate him matter how much fire power they threw at him....and they used heavy cannons against him that cost us taxpayers about 10 million dollars which has never been accounted for.

Sadly, in the Dick Furstenau Case the railroading and destruction of a politician may have "succeeded".....especially assuming people off this blog site feel the same as people on this blog site. Something I doubt. We will not know until DF runs for elections again what kind of damage the City of Naperville has done to DF for trying to be a good reprsenstative of the people by preventing their cars from being towed illegally. This incident was simply an opportunity used to destroy DF. Anyone who watches City Council meetings knows that DF does not approve wasteful spending by City Officials and this distrubs his fellow council men who brought us an 11.5 million deficit in the budget and a 61.5 million deficit in the police and fire pension funds. Right now he is trying to block nearly 4% raises to police and fire officers. Of course he is not going to be popular with with colleagues who want to give the police and fire officers whatever they want in order to have their votes during election time.

These are bad economic times. Most people I know have received no raises this year. Most I know have gotten pay cuts and no bonuses. That is if they are lucky and were not laid off as nearly 700,000 '
Americans are each and every month. Does anyone blogging here watch CNBC?

A friend of mine from GM had a 7% pay cut and lost his annual bonus this year. He does not know how he will pay his real estate tax bill which went up 5.89% this year due to these raises given out by the City of Naperville. Who do you guys think this GM Executive is going to vote for next election? The councilman who held the line on taxes or the city council members who gave raises to city employees in these dire economic times when people are being laid off, losing their bonuses, health benefits, and in many cases their entire livelihoods. And our City Council wants to make it rougher on them by giving union City Employees nearly 4% rasises after giving non-union employees 2.65% raises. YES, THIS YEAR while we are in a DEPRESSION! Go figure!

You guessed it. He will vote for the man who held the line on taxes. That man is Dick Furstenau. I will vote for him too.

And for those who do not know DF, he is not a bully in real life. He is a bully in the figments of the imaginations of the bloggers who parrot each other like lost parakeets on this blog site.

I say it is time you all go out and get a real life and be productive members of society like Dick Furstenau. Even you parakeets admitted he goes to fundraisers and even meets you in your neighborhoods to discuss traffic issues. And you have the audacity to call him arrogant. Maybe it is you all who are truly full of ARROGANCE.

It is refreshing to see the end of an era of Napergatians... They are no longer blogging at the dunkin donuts, maybe they had to get jobs in these hard times who knows but they sure arent winning the silly post battles anymore...

Then Sun is going to be oftly boring now that this is almost over.

TO: Legal Fees... on March 25, 2009 4:58 PM
You stated "Any attorney would have defended this case for 5k or 10k."

If you take that $5000.00 you said an attorney would accept for payment to defend this case, and divide it by the 6 defendants, plus the city that breaks down to about $715.00 per defendant for at minimum of two years of their time and expertise.

Can you give me his phone number in case I need a lawyer as a defend in a trumped up civil rights case?

Again, we come back to DF not following procedure...

If the signs truly were not posted at all, there is an appeal process for the tow and it would have been settled in the proper manner. The sad fact is notice was given through multiple ways and DF himself voted to approve the setting up of temporary no parking/tow zones in the downtown area. Again, if someone else did not do their job and get signs out quickly enough, the tows could have been appealed at no charge to the vehicle owners. The process to appeal does not involve trying to prevent an officer from performing his duties (which is what DF tried to do).

Did anyone towed file an appeal? If so, what was the ruling?

One more challeng to you in addition to word count.....I never ONCE used the word NAPERGATE. Give yourself a challenge and see if you can do the same!

not sure why I am bothering at this point, but I will take another crack at it........

You make an excellent point. This started when there was a confrontation between a cop and a blowhard. Charges were brought. There was a difference version of the events of that confrontation. The blowhard was vindicated. end of story. This should all be on the city's tab.

BUT now the blowhard decides to bring a suit against the city. I'll say it again....the BLOWHARD DECIDES to sue the city. This is important, so pay attention. He didnt have to. He was no longer facing jail time. There is no threat to him. Of his own volition, and knowing that city will need to spend money to defend the suit (or spend money to settle), he files. How much money is irrelevent at this point.

the blowhard decided that the city should have to spend money. Of course, they could settle. and pay the blowhard $100 K. It is still spending money. So either way, the blowhard decided the city should spend some money to make him happy. THE BLOWHARD FORCED THE CITY TO SPEND MONEY.

He didnt have to. He has free will. He could have left it alone. but he didnt. HE FORCED THE CITY TO SPEND MONEY.

Now we can talk about tactics, ms ely, and whatever else you want.

(as an aside -- I wrote this with about 240 words. see if you can beat me by responding with fewer.)

"You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts." Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Fact - DF sued the City

Fact - The City defended the suit

Fact - The City has paid lots of $$

Fact - DF won nothing

My opinion is that the City has an obligation to defend itselef against what it believes to be frivoluous suits.

My opinion is the fact that the City won at virtually every substantive ruling indicates it was legally correct.

My opinion is that, whatever DF's motives, in losing his lawsuit he cost the City taxpayers mucho $$$

Legal Fees –

“DF was not the cause. All DF was doing is trying to prevent cars from being towed without notice.”

Yes, DF was the cause. If he wants to look out for the people and stop cars from being towed, there’s an easy (and correct) way for him to do it. Call the NPD and ask for the watch commander or another official and make them aware of the situation. He should never have tried to inject himself into the NPD chain of command, heated discussion or not.


Sun Editors –

Thank you for the request for a stop to the text-speak. It is incredibly annoying.


Legal Fees –

You may be right about the fees, you may be wrong. There are unpaid bills and they could be for millions, or they could be for only a few hours of work. The point is at this juncture nobody knows and all we can go by is that the current bills are about $1 million.

There’s a lot to be said for brevity. By measured, I meant to say I like JQP’s sort and “to the point” posts over your rambling ones which go off into various tangents.

Also, again with Napergate? Bla bla bla. There’s no connection between then and now. You can bring it up all you want, but it’s just a red herring.


By Legal Fees will be over 2 million:

You poor Napergatian, you write long winded blogs repeating yourself over and over like you did during the Napergate blogs. You believe that if you write it over and over and over it will somehow make your point seem correct. Its time to accept defeat yet again. I hope DF decides to go forward, then the City can go after him for the legal fee's when he loses...

Touche JQP! Your Monty Python comparison is my laugh for the day!

By Get Real on March 25, 2009 9:33 PM

DF brought the case. DF was the cause. the amount the city was forced to spend the defend the suit is quite irrelevent. That is the point YOU keep missing over and over.


I am really amazed that nobody gets this. DF was not the cause. All DF was doing is trying to prevent cars from being towed without notice. That is all he was doing. He may or may not have touched a cop to make his point. It could have been an unintentional or intentional touching in the heat of a discussion.

The city attempted to bring felony charges and ended up only having misdemeanor charges brought that were beaten down. Now what city in its infinite wisdom would bring felony charges against a city council man for such a petty issue. He was watching out for the residents. He was not trying to harass a cop who was not using common sense and towing cars without observing there were no signs posted. He was simply trying to get him to smell the coffee.

So the city got the ball rolling by bringing forward FELONY charges. Felony charges are very serious charges that can land one in jail for up to 15 years. Dick was upset and had every right to bring a civil rights suit to see if he could be compensated for the violation of his civil rights....for the agony and suffering he went through. Try to see if you can get a good night sleep if you are facing 15 years in a 4 by 8 ft cell for touching or not touching a cop intentionally or unintentionally. Ask Bernie Madoff how it feels to be in such a cell for 23 hours day. Can anyone imagine how something feels on this blog site without experiencing it.

This is one issue.

The other issue is the City had a right to defend itself against the suit. DF can not control if the City chooses to spend 20,000 or 20,000,000. Only Margo Ely and the City Council minus DF can control how much is spent and did in fact control how much was spent. They are ultimately responsible for these legal fees...not DF or SC.

A city can be very stupid and decide to spend 100 million defending a case like this. Or they can be very smart and decide to spend 10,000 on a case like this. The choice is not made by the plaintiff. It is made by the defendent. The defendant meaning the City of Naperville made the call here so please stop blaming DF for this horrendous waste of taxpayer money.

DF did not tell Margo Ely to be a fool and not cap the fees of these money hungery law firms. DF did not tell Margo it was alright to pay these money hungry attorneys 475-600 hundred dollars an hour instead of 140-200 dollars an hour. DF did not tell Margo to hire these law firms instead of defend the case herself with her internal staff. Why have an internal legal dept if it is not willing to defend such "petty" cases? DF did not tell Margo Ely to agree to pay for their travelling expenses back and forth from City Hall.

Margo could have saved us tens of thousands of dollars if she was willing to meet these attorneys in downtown Chicago instead of having them come to Naperville and charging us 2000 dollars for each round trip.

All you guys who are supporting Margo's actions would never behave like her. You would not be as foolish as she has been spending your hard earned money. You would most likely be frugal and smart with your money.

If any of your bloggers acted like Margo Ely if you were sued, you would have nothing left after spending 2 million dollars on a frivilous suit. You would be bankrupt. You would never act this irrational yet you feel it is alright to for Margo Ely to act this irrational.

If someone was trying to sue me for a 100k over a gray area issue and I knew it would cost me 2 million to defend and possibly be wiped out, I would negotiate a settlement early for 50k and call it a day. At least I would have 1,950,000 left to continue my life and live another day. I would not let my ego interfere.

I am sure JQP who is known to be well measured with common sense and reason will do the same. He is not going to let his EGO be the deciding factor in any case against him and lose his life time savings. Margo Ely and the 8 Council Members allowed their inflated EGOS be the deciding factor in how much of taxpayer money they were willing to spend.

The point I am trying to make is all you bloggers are all parot talk. You would never be stupid enough to practice what you are preaching. None of you, if you had assets of 2 million or 5 million would risk fighting a lawsuit for the value of your net worth if it can be settled for 10 or 20k or possibly an APOLOGY.

If you are not willing to act irrationally for yourselves, why do you support Margo Ely acting irrationally with our combined money? If you let her act irrationally once, she will do it again. She saw former City Attorney Michael Roth act irrationally and spend 10 million dollars on the Napergate Case and get away with it by shredding or burying the records. That may have encouraged her to do what Simon did. She does not have the courage of former City Attorney Michaal Roth to bury all the records but I have some suspicians she is trying to bury some of the records or delay their availability to a much later day.

We as taxpayers have to be united against this waste of taxpayer money. DF's lawsuit was a gray area suit. It was not a slam dunk suit for either side. It should have been settled very early on for pennies on the dollars for what it has cost in litigation fees. This waste of taxpayer money was unnecessary and could have been prevented. Yes, by Margo Ely and not Dick Furstenau.

How many more times will I have to repeat myelf. Only time will tell.

i thankfully have no handle, the names bone. dave bone. or no ego, well maybe just a little. i am simply a person who is trying to not so anonymously hold DICK accountable and responsible for the waste of hard earned taxpayers money. mr. "i don't have an ego", keep defending DICK, it suits you, and please keep demanding margo's resignation. this shall be your, raison d'etre ! bonne chance !

By Legal Fees will be over 2 million,

You're right in that you never said the case was rock solid. Forgive me for jumping to that conclusion when you persistently argued that the city should have been able to get away with spending $100K, or whatever much lower figure you're using now. I can draw either of two conclusions from this argument: 1) it was a slam dunk that even an inexperienced and/or low-paid attorney should be able to win; or 2) it was a simple case, and the issues were straightforward, so it shouldn't involve too much time for a good, experienced attorney to handle. Since, this was a civil rights case involving five or six defendants and allegations of conspiracy, I assumed you didn't mean option 2. Now I'm not really sure why you're complaining about the cost, except that a part of you has come to accept that DF's case was a stretch to begin with, but you can't quite fully come to terms with this, so you need to bash the city about something else.

As for your continued assertion that this was a tie, I can't help but think of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Rather than let King Arthur cross the bridge he guards, he challenges Arthur to a duel. He insists on continuing to fight even after getting his arm lopped off ("It's only a flesh wound!"), and still won't give up after Arthur proceeds to cut off his remaining limbs one by one. In the end, as he is squirming on the ground while Arthur is crossing the bridge, he shouts out, "We'll call it a draw!"



It is ALL too much money to spend defending a case that never should have been brought in the first place.

DF brought the case. DF was the cause. the amount the city was forced to spend the defend the suit is quite irrelevent. That is the point YOU keep missing over and over.


No one said the city is the villain.

Most cities don't have 2 million bucks to burn.

They would have fought it with their in-house staff or hired a local firm to fight it for a 10k flat fee.

U guys are all saying this is a nothing and frivilous case.

For the sake of argument let me agree with u all.

Than why in the h@ll did we have to spend 2 God D@man million dollars of taxpayer money on a "worthless" case.

Margo Ely should have gotten off her butt and apperared before the Judge and described this case as frivilous and asked him to dismiss it at no cost to the Naperville Taxpayer.

Why is she employed as an attorney if she can't appear before a Judge on a "worthless, nothing and frivilous" case???

U guys r all missing my point. Over and over again.

Now try discussing my point intead of repeating urselves as if you were a herd of parrots who can't think.

Forget Furstenau for a second. Assume he screwed up for argument's sake.

Now let us talk about Margo Ely and how she wasted our taxpayer money by hiring greedy high priced law firms to handle a "touching" case. I am laughing at all of u guys since u can not comprehend or understand who spent our money.

Would Villa Park or Bolingbrook have spent 2 million dollars on such a case? Of course not. We do because we are an out of control city who thinks money goes on trees.

Wasteful spending is a pattern in the city. That is my point. Someone needs to control the purse strings in this town a little better.

If u guys don't learn to hold ur city accountable for its wasteful spending habits you will soon be paying 20k in real estate taxes instead of 10k in real estate taxes for ur homes.

Maybe u r all still in school and have not experienced paying ur first real estate tax bills.

OK, I have not mocked or attacked anyone up to this point. But u guys have begun the mocking and attacking all over again and the moderator is once again letting it through.

So this POST is my record to the Moderator as to who started it and when he reprimands I urge him to reprimand the ones who start this silliness and not the one who defends himself against unwarranted and uninstigated attacks.

Hopefully, the Moderator will see this and call a truce early this time before it escalates out of control as it has in the past.

He needs to urge the bloggers to discuss the subject on the thread and not be discussing me or my style of writing as he has warned on more than one occassion.

Thank u Moderator for ur attention to this matter in advance I know u don't like these kinds of exchanges so please nip them in the bud. At least u r on record stating u don't like them.


PS. Please review the prior few posts so u will have no doubt in ur mind who starts these personal attacks. U will see very cleary who is trying to start an internet brawl. Pretty soon they will all be whining like cry babies to u to defend them when I began retaliating. And of course, they will accuse me as usual of starting all this...lol...lol...

All these boys have handles which are their alter egos. They live for their egos. I thankfully have no handle or ego. I am simply a person who is trying to anonymously hold the City of Naperville accountable and responsible for the waste of hard earned taxpayer money.


Please show me where I said the city case is rock solid...you are beginning to make things up which will go to ur credibility.

I have said this is a 50%-50% case which amounts to rolling the dice for either side. That is why they chose to negotiate a settle and kiss instead of risk defeat. They agreed to a TIE. A SETTLEMENT in which each party gets SOMETHING. (BTW they have not agreed yet because DF and SC r furious that Margo Ely leaked information to the Daily Herald in violation of their tentative agreement...so there may be no agreement)

I said no one had a smoking gun like the Napergate Man and his videotape and other evidence.

I said Margo Ely should have never spent 2 million dollars for a "nothing" case. In no way does that translate to the city having a "rock solid" case. "Nothing" in parenthesis means I don't necessarily agree it was a nothing case. Others think that yet r willing to spend 2 million bucks on this case. I was just trying to make a point about the insanity surrounding this case. The irrationality if you will.

I am simply stating regardless of the merits of this case either way, it should have been defended for 10-25k of taxpayer money.....not 2,000,000 bucks.

I have not asked for Margo Ely's head as happens in Japan. I am only asking her to resign for wasting 2 million in taxpayer money. I did not even ask her to reimburse us for the lost taxpayer money. I am letting her off easy.

I think u need to read what I write before u comment.

Legal Fees

if u would stop typing 4 a minute u might be able 2 c that u are cr8z as a march hare.

DF cost u and me $$ up the WAZOOOOOOO. he cre8ed this case from a hurt ego.

spin spin spin like a top, u cant change the fact that if DF had never filed the suit, the city would have more $$$ than if they put $10K on a Russian Roulette table and 1 a big cr8 full of $$$$$$$$$$!

it makes me lol and even lmfao reading the loony justific8ions u post! there seems 2 b no set of circumstances that could b imagined that would not have the city b the villian.

That Censure of Furstenau was funny! Remember when CM Bob asked one of the people there in support of DF if she had even read the censure? She said no! Blind faith in a fools folly she had. I bet none of the rest of his supporters had read it as well...

Legal Fees will be over 2 million,

You can keep saying the same thing again and again, but it won't turn black into white. And now we have that the judge is notoriously biased? Wow! What horrible luck for DF! If it weren't for the whole world being against him, he'd have won his case easily!

BTW, you need to make up your mind. First you were saying that the city was wasting our money because DF's case was a slam dunk for him. Now you seem to think that there was no need to spend money on outside counsel, as the city's case was rock solid. You can't have it both ways, here. You need to come down on one side of the fence or the other.



Do u foam at the mouth as u type?

Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on March 25, 2009 4:58 PM
...unlike ur buddy TB. Ur praise for each other is getting a little repetitious. It serves no purpose other than to stroke ur respective EGOS. Let focus on the issues and stop praising each other. Make ur points and earn ur wings.


Legal Fees. When you were pretending to be Obama you developed a writing style to mimick his speaking style, the same when you were the Agnostic. Now with your new writing style - combination southern drawl and teenage "texter" (ur is apparently slang for your?) I suggest you go by the name of a Southern Sheriff instead - how about Roscoe B. Coltrain, or Andy Griffith?

DF made the choice to sue. He didn't have to, but he did. If he can not see his culpability in this, then he is BEYOND help.

By John Q. Public on March 25, 2009 9:44 AM
Legal Fees will be over 2 million,

For someone with as much experience with law firms and law suits as you seem to have it's surprising that you don't recognize that when a plaintiff drops his case and gets nothing for it, it's a victory for the defense.


Mr. John Q. Public,
U may not be as meaured and comepetent as TB is stating but nonetheless u seem like someone who is willing to learn...unlike ur buddy TB. Ur praise for each other is getting a little repetitious. It serves no purpose other than to stroke ur respective EGOS. Let focus on the issues and stop praising each other. Make ur points and earn ur wings.

The plaintiff is not dropping his case and getting nothing. He is negotiating a dismissal in return for his release of potential 2 million dollar liability. The city is coughing up its rights to recover 2 million in expended legal costs. U call this nothing, JQP, and TB calls u measured and competent.

It has become obvious to SC and DF that their case was not as easily provable as they once thought. They were also assigned a cop friendly judge who ruled in favor of the cops 5 consecutive times in the last year or two. Some of his prior rulings were reversed on appeal by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There was a 50% chance of winning in this case and a 50% chance of losing. It all depends on who the jury believes because there is no hard core evidence. The cop friendly Judge also has massive power to influence or sway the jury as he sees fit. He even has the power to deny a trial altogether thus ruling for the defendent without allowing the plaintiff to even present his case. This is how our system works. You don't automatically get ur day in court. U get ur day in court if the Judge likes u or u have irrefutable evidence like the Napergate Man. There were strong indications that the Judge was in the mood to dismiss the rest of the DF case.

If DF lost, the Judge could demand that he reimburse the City of Napervile for the 2 million dollars it lost. And he may have because he was a notorious cop friendly Judge. Thus it would cost DF 2,000,000 dollars. This judge has in the past forced losing litigants that did not prevail to pay the costs of the winning litigants. If DF won, he would get 143,000. That is it. Those were his declared damages.

Sean Collins made a calculated and wise decision. 50% chance of losing 2,000,000 is much worse than a 50% chance of winnng 143,000. These are odds that an excellent attorney has to figure out before proceeding.

One of the problems in this case is SC and DF may have never contemplated that the City of Naperville was willing and crazy enough to spend 5 million dollars on his case that he could potentially be liable for.

The bottom line, Mr. Public, the City of Naperville is forgoing the RIGHT to collect 2 million dollars they will eventually spend in this case by negotiating a settlement with DF that requires him to dismiss the case. They are sacrificing our taxpayer rights without our permission.

I think SC and DF are making a wise decsion. They felt the pain as they are playing with their money. City Officials did not feel any pain as they were playing with our money....taxpayer money. In some way they flinched and smelled the coffee. But they don't have to file for bankrupcty due to their flinching. They are not men with unlimited egos. They have limits.

The Napergatge Man never flinched and went 10 years. He knew he would never be liable for the 10 million the city spent. He knew he had all kinds of evidence on his side, he had massive public support and he had that infamous video. He knew the City was spending 10 million dollars and he was probably hoping the city would spend 20 million so the taxpayers would oust every city official elected and otherwise.

His strategy would have worked. It did not work because City Officials and Council Members worked in collusion to destroy all the records. While Tim West knew what was going on, he did not push hard enough. He hollered once in the Sun Pages and someone must have reached him and told him to quiet down. He quieted down immediately. He has always had serious heart issues and he is not one who can handle the mighty power of City Hall. So he backed down and never found out what happened to the records showing the costs of the Napergate Trials.

The City of Naperville got away with murder in the Napergate Case. In this case, we as taxpayers must hold them responsible for the drunken sailor spending on legal fees on a case we all agree amounts to "nothing."


1. Why did not the in-house legal dept handle this "frivilous" case and save us 2 million dollars?

2. Why did Margo Ely not have the wisdom to cap the legal fees of all law firms and lawyers used to defend the 6 city employees and the city itself?

3. Why did Margo Ely not negotiate lower hourly rates?

4. Why were not local less expensive law firms used instead of these high powered BIG NAME Chicago Law Firms that were also used in the Napergate Cases.

5. Did Margo Ely attempt to negotiate travel expenses out of the billlings? For those who do not know, an attorney will charge u 500 dollars to drive to court if that is his hourly rate and it takes him an hour to drive to court. And he will charge u another 500 dollars for returning to his office. And he will charge u 40 dollars for parking in a garage downtown and to add insult to it injury he will charge u for his gas and tolls. Does Margo Ely or anyone in the City revwiew these bills?

I can go on and on. I suggest the Naperville Sun file a FOI Request and study these legal bills. In my opinion these law firms railroaded the City for a "nothing" case.

Any attorney would have defended this case for 5k or 10k. It is a case that amounts to "nothing." Who cares if a cop was touched or not touched to make a point.

6. Did Margo Ely allow these lawyers drive from Chicago to Naperville costing us $2000 dollars for each round trip or did she get off her rear end and visit them to save us the $2000 dollars in traveling expenses? Let us try to find out.

7. Finally one needs to ask what are Margo Ely's relationships with these law firms she retained? Have they offered her a job once she leaves Naperville? We all know that Council Man Kevin Callagher voted on all the Brestal Law Firms projects and his reward was a future job at that law firm. Why does not our legal dept. forbid obtaining a job at a place u give contracts to for a period of 5 years as is common in the municipal and corporate worlds?

The city council needs to investigate these issues immediately. Spending 2 million on a "he said she said case" makes absolutely no sense. A layman could have dismissed this case. One has to specualte and wonder if all this money was given out so our legal staff could one day have cushy 200k jobs at some of these law firms?

Let us not keep the blinders on and assume there is nothing going on behind the scenes. It is so easy to bash DF and say these legal fees are all his fault. He did not hire anyone. He did not agree to spend this horrific amount of money. Ms. Margo Ely has to take responsibiliy for all this wasted taxpayer money.


after reading alot of these posts, i have decided that most of you proponents for DICK, are some 50 to 60 year old, pot smoking, ex-hippies who have never liked "the pigs." you imagine great conspiracies involving the NAPERGATE MAN, and a caped flying DICK saving you and your always "high" buddies from paranoid delusions and injustices. where you and your waistoid friends just want to be naked and live in trees. but the cops are always hassling you, totally bogus ! but now you demand free health care ! you can't accept that DICK is the real culprit here. he knows it ! he got away with it. LET US NOT FORGET THIS MAN WAS CENSURED BY HIS OWN COUNCIL. is he the type of man who would strong arm the cops ? DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM ????
HOW DARE YOU TOW THESE CARS !!!! is this the same man who was harassing city employee's and was subsequently censured ???? he needs to be removed ! HE WAS NOT CENSURED FOR HIS LAWSUIT. HE WAS CENSURED FOR HIS IMPROPER BEHAVIOR WITH CITY EMPLOYEE'S. ask them if he is just, ask them if he is a good man, ask them if he is a bully. this is not about being tough, and cutting salaries, all this watchdog mumbo jumbo etc... i do recall the man voted FOR that 5 million dollar obelisk !!! this is about proper etiquette, improper behavior and even illegal behavior. he should still undergo a medical examination. i believe he is bi-polar, senile, has the beginning stages of alzheimer's and is surely schizophrenic ! as for some previous hippies post, i do believe you are right. there about 30 DICK supporters, that is about it. not 30 - 1 more like 149,970 - 30.

"If u were men u would have appeared and spoke against DF in City Hall face to face the day he was censured. "


Real men don't waste their time talking to an arrogant cry baby again. Some of us have been face to face w/ Dick. He had the audacity to tell me I didn't know the traffic pattern in my own neighborhood after I explained that a light sequence and the city's traffic study was flawed and would create a dangerous condition in the future due to backups. The way he spoke to me with an arrogance told me all I needed to know about the man.

By Tim Leary on March 25, 2009 9:53 AM
Seems that all you "lawyers" blogging here don't know how to do your homework.
Total fees will be about ONE MILLION. Not two. The city has been very clear on this. Go to the next council meeting and ask.


Dear Tim Leary,

I feel like I am a broken record repeating myself. Sometimes I wish the Moderator would come on and refer to the article in his newspaper so u guys will stop spreading rumors.

Margo in this article stated the above words verbatim.


According to Ely, the city has spent about $1 million in defense costs for the case.

“We were at about $1 million a month ago,” Ely said. So far, the city has spent $989,135.84 on legal bills, Ely said. That does not include bills to two of the attorneys defending the case, and no bills for March.


If the city was clear as u stated they previously misled us as they misled us in the Napergate Case. The Napergate Case is relevant because it shows the City of Naperville has a pattern of deception and will not change its stripes.

The City contrary to what u r saying Mr. Leary has already admitted spending nearly 1 million according to Margo's own words published again in the Naperville Sun. I assume u babble on this blog site before bothering to read the news of the day in the local papers.

They had many attorneys and I believe 3 law firms handling these cases due to the number of defendants. Apparently 2 attorneys have not yet billed the City of Naperville a penny. Decent attorneys bill monthly. These attorneys are most likely going to hit the City with bills that will cause a Tsunami to develop on the banks of the Dupage River outside of City Hall. These attorneys may be padding their bills and the extreme delay in billing makes it hard for the City of Naperville to prove their bills were padded. At the time the City is happy because they can say the DF case only cost us 1,000,000 to date while the case is on the front pages of the newspapers. They are hoping the rest of the bills will come in when the case has been settled and the case is off the front pages.

Margo and her staff also have put in hundreds of hours if not thousands working on this case. A pro rata share of their salaries needs to be allocated to this case. It has not been so far for obvious reasons.

Anyway u split the peas, this DF case cost the City over 2,000,000 dollars. U all continue to say this was a weak and frivilous case. Let me buy ur argument for a second. If it is so weak and frivilous why the need to spend 2 million dollars before it even goes to trial. We have not even had jury selection let alone a trial.

The only reason this DF case is weak is because there was NO video to show what happened that fateful afternoon. It would have been a "he said she said" case if it had proceeded and either side could have won or lost. That is why both sides buckled and want a deal. If this was a slam dunk case for the city why not proceed, win in court, and have a chance to force DF to reimburse us for the 2 million. The answer is it was not a slam dunk case for the City of Naperville as it was not a slam dunk case for SC and DF. That is the unbiased truth that most bloggers can not accept due to their own biases.

The Napergate Case is relevant and provides lessons to be learned. If u r going to sue City Hall u better have a video tape. If u don't, u will most likey be rolling dice. It is obvious City Officials are willing to spend millions of dollars to fight anyone who brings a case against the city whether it is frivilous or not. They don't care. They want to fight. It is not their money. It is our money that they r using to fight these cases. They will never compromise their EGOS for anyone.

They learned early on in a Kangaroo Court about the video tape that the Napergate Man possessed. They refused to back down when it was clear with his video tape he will win even if the city spent 10 million dollars of taxpayer money. The, city due to their egos, spent 10,000,000 and lost all the records.

U guys can babble all u want on this blog site but the facts r the facts.

If u were men u would have appeared and spoke against DF in City Hall face to face the day he was censured. Only one lady had the guts to say he was a bad guy to his face. Over 30 people spoke on his behalf. I was there to speak on his behalf but did not speak because the Mayor said we have limited time and he does not want anyone repeating what anyone else said. I and many others were going to repeat so we did not speak. We respected the Mayor's wish who was being fair and reasonable. He even extended the time alloted for the issue from a half hour to an hour and a half to allow 30 speakers to speak for 3 minutes each. So for those who were not there, that is why only 30 spoke on his behalf. Not because he only has 30 supporters in town....lol....

In real life, support for DF was 30-1 even though most of his supporters could not speak in City Hall due to legitimate time contraints since there r many other issues the council has to deal with on Tuesday evenings. Even if everyone who spoke was his neighbor that speaks volumes for him. How many of you bloggers can get 30 of ur neighbors to speak on ur behalf? I bet none of u even know 30 of ur neighbors. So why bash DF day and night?

Do u guys really believe a bully would not be a bully in his own neighborhood? Of course he would if he was truly a bully. He is not a bully. The city considers him a bully because he tries to control wasteful spending that enriches the ESTABLISHMENT and their supports.

Stop bashing DF and try to meet him. He is one of the nicest and caring guys u will meet in ur life. His only crime is he did not have a video tape to show he did not touch the cop. Maybe next time he will have some luck on his side like the Napergate Man when the City decides to frame him again because he does not want to give the police department a raise.

Yes, the police officers are trying to get a 3.6% raise at this moment and DF is upset again. He is fighting this raise and should as he was elected to watch out for us taxpayers and not those milking us for every last penny we have. He understands that the taxpayers are losing jobs, taking wage cuts, and foregoing bonuses. Their real estate taxes r up 5.9% this year. He is fighting for the taxpayers while City Officials and City Employees r finding ways to enrich themselves at our expense. Do u guys get it, yet?


It amazes me that for the past 1+ years not one blogger has taken the time to pull the court records and read the filings.

It amazes me that no one has commented on the Councilman's behavior as it relates to making decisions for this community and how he casts his votes on the 1st & 3rd Tuesdays of every month.

It amazes me that public record does not mean much to this blogging community.

Seems that all you "lawyers" blogging here don't know how to do your homework.
Total fees will be about ONE MILLION. Not two. The city has been very clear on this. Go to the next council meeting and ask.
As far as Furstenau backing out of this deal, I highly doubt it. By even talking this settlement with the city he has admitted his case is more than weak. If he does continue the city WILL get the sanctions they are after and Dick can not afford that. Shawn, while not the brightest guy in the world, doesn't want this case to drain any more from him than he has already given.

Legal Fees will be over 2 million,

For someone with as much experience with law firms and law suits as you seem to have it's surprising that you don't recognize that when a plaintiff drops his case and gets nothing for it, it's a victory for the defense. I'm not taking the city's side here; I'm just stating the obvious. Doug Furstenau sued the city, not the other way around. It's not as if the city had a chance of somehow coming out ahead financially if the case had gone to trial. The absolute best the city could hope for from a trial is that the jury would vote overwhelmingly against DF, and the judge would order him to pay the city's costs. We'll probably never know now how a jury would vote on this case, but the likelihood of DF having to pay the city's costs was not very good. And even then, the city would at best break even.

As to how much this is will ultimately cost the city, we'll see. So far, you don't have a very good track record with your predictions about this case, though.


Legal Fees –

Just a few points:

1. If you've read these posts at all in the past year or two you'd know that JQP is very measured and competent.
2. Rumors are just that and carry no weight.
3. We’re not teenagers frantically texting each other during class. Complete words would be…less annoying. Got it, u?
4. If DF and Collins thought they could win this case they wouldn’t even entertain the notion of a settlement and withdrawal such as this. Their case was done.
5. Napergate was long ago and has no relevance to the current situation. Your repeated references to Napergate add nothing to this discussion.


Given his recent behavior, I think Dick's time has passed as a member of the City Council. I do not want this man to represent me any more. It's obvious that his ego and arrogance have overshadowed his past accomplishments. I have met the man a few times through my volunteer work, and he acts like he either doesn't care, or that we should appreciate the fact that he even made the time to show up. From what I've heard from others, he exhibits this type of behavior all the time -- like he feels that he should be treated like royalty.

He also represents himself as a "friend" of the taxpayer, when all he did recently was engage the City in a frivolous and wasteful law suit. So he loses an election? So what!! I've never heard of a politician who sued to get his election campaign dollars back because he lost an election. Not before Dick, of course.

I ask the people of Naperville to keep this in mind in two years when Dick is up for reelection. Let's vote Dick out before he causes any more damage to our city!!

To Legal Fees:

"Going to a jury is like going to a Russian Roulette table at a casino."

I don't know what casino you play at, but the ones I have been to have no such game. Be that as it may, a WEAK/FRIVOLOUS civil suit is like a flip of the coin, like you suggest. A STRONG ONE is a slam dunk.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one we have here. As already stated, I will happily pay whatever it takes as a taxpayer to ensure DF does not get a dime from his crybaby/meltdown episode.

TO: Legal Fees...

You waste your time blaming others, and bringing up irrelevant issues of legal costs for a totally unrelated case in the last decade. Those points are moot because the cost for the city to defend itself was directly caused hy Dick Furstenau's lawsuit. You may argue his lawsuit was justified, but many taxpayer, including myself, won't! All this for an apology, and pay back political cronies???

If you have a problem with the fact that he put the city in a position to defend 6 people, three of whom have already prevailed against his lawsuit because they never should have been targeted in the first place. Let's cut down some of the cost to us taxpayers by getting Furstenau's money to cover it. From what I read on this blog, he doesn't have to pay his attorney who is on contingency, so he should be able to afford to pay for the attorney fees of the vindicated defendants, at least. I believe the city did the right things, and Furstenau did the wrong things.

Don't waste your time looking for scapegoats.

John Q. Public,

It seems like u r falling for the city spin and trap.

This 350,000 budgeted is needed whether the case proceeds or does not proceed.

Remember they have not paid 2 attorneys yet according to the Naperville Sun article.

Also they have not paid most of their bills from Feb 09 and all their bills from March in which negotiations r still ongoing. How do u expect these bills to be paid. Margo is already admitting to a million bucks without these bills. So of course this 350k will be needed and more. According to what I read somewhere at least 600k is going to be needed to get all the expenses paid. This will give us at least 1.6 million and if this present settlement does not go though, it will go over 2 million.

Rumors are Furstenau may back down because Margo Ely stabbed him and Sean Collins in the back by breaking the secrecy agreement and calling the Dailey Herald to boast. DF will not have any of this nonsense. Margo may have cost the taxpayer another 3 million dollars if DF and SC decide to go to a jury trial. Going to a jury is like going to a Russian Roulette table at a casino. U roll the dice and u hope the jury believes ur story. There is no smoking gun like that video in the Napergate Case so both sides have equal chances of winning or losing. It is a pure gamble that both sides have decided they r in no mood to take. They both flinched. They both surrendered and agreed to a truce. Both sides decided that kissing ur sister is better than nothing. Both sides wanted a tie over a possible defeat. A settlement means no one won. There was a price for the disissal. It was not free. That is why negotiations r still ongoing and may fail because Margo or someone on her staff may be leaking information to their buddies in the Daily Herald. At least the Sun stayed above this nastiness of publishing leaks.

Sorry got a little off the topic of legal fees.

And we don't know anything about legal expenses besides legal fees.

And don't be surprised if there is a bonus dismissal as is very typical in these large law firms. If there was no bonus incentive these outside law firms would keep it rolling. They made a calculated decision to take the bonus and make up the hours on other cases they have outstanding.

I use to offer law firms large bonuses to dismiss cases I was involved in. Otherwise I knew they would drag them on forever and milk me out of every last dollar I had. I also capped most law firms I dealt with. They hated it but I told them they either accept the cap or I am going elsewhere. They would buckle eventually and accept the capping of the legal fees. I don't think Margo Ely had the wisdom to negotiate a cap. If she did not, she should RESIGN effective immediately. She may not be capable of protecting the Naperville Taxpayers from these shark like law firms.

If I were u I would keep ur eyes on these expenses instead of always padding the city on the back like it is perfect....like it could do no wrong. U r new to town. U were not here when they completely lost or shredded the Napergate Costs. 10 years of legal battles and they said they had no records.

U may not believe me. But fire a short e-mail to Editor Tim West and he will confirm the city blew him off when he tried to inquire about the legal fees in the Napergate Case. He let them have an earful but to no avail. They were never going to reveal to the taxpayers how much money they spent on the Napergate Cases. It would have been political suicide espcially at a time when the Napergate Man was running full page Napergate Ad promoting candidates for city council. They did the right thing for themselves by not revealing the legal costs but did an injustice to the taxpayer. Even though it is 8 or 9 years later, I think the City should come clean on both cases. I don't think the records were buried with former Mayor Macrane in his coffin. I think they are in the basement of City Hall stored with all the other important records.

We are now at the moment where we have to learn from the mistakes of the past. The City of Naperville fooled us once. We can not allow them to fool us a second time. I think the saying goes fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Otis Campbell wrote:

3) DF files civil suit vs. city- judge dismisses all but cases against 3 PD members-DF withdraws- draw DF/city

If that was a victory for DF, it was of the "declare victory and withdraw your troops" nature. He left the field to the "enemy", which is another way of saying he lost.

4) DF gets no apology, no $-DF loses
5) DF uses court to stick it to those that attacked his character-city spends at least $1 million (probably $1.6 million), everyone named in suit has to get their own lawyer, DF spends $100,000-victory DF

Somehow, I think DF was much more interested in #4 than in #5. Moreover, I doubt this was at all the outcome Mr. Collins was seeking, since he spent untold thousands on the case, and has nothing to show for it. If this is all DF wanted going in, then he should have told his attourney who, I'm sure, would have been far less likely to take the case on a contingency.

ha ha, i had to come out of the woodwork for this ! hooray for the city ! that guy can high tail it out of town now ! whoopee ! a side note, i saw DICK at the st. patricks parade. trying to look like joe cool in his sunglasses, borrowed red convertible. i yelled out, boo ! leave town, boo ! he slowly turned toward me, looking very much like the terminator, he calmly raised his hand, made his hand into the gun figure and let the hammer fall. i laughed out loud ! boo ! i yelled some more and he mechanically flipped me the bird ! i think i like DICK now. seriously, the man is a complete embarrassment. it is, or was 100% his fault that the city spent $1,000,000 dollars. HE could have avoided this. he does not like you, he is an insect. drive by his house some time in the summer, i believe you will find him in creekside. see if he is watering his precious lawn on his "off" days. believe me, rules DO NOT apply to DICK !

For those at home keeping score:

1) DF charged with battery of PD officer-case dismissed-victory DF
2) States Atty tries to add obstruction charge on DF court date-blocked by judge-victory DF
3) DF files civil suit vs. city- judge dismisses all but cases against 3 PD members-DF withdraws- draw DF/city
4) DF gets no apology, no $-DF loses
5) DF uses court to stick it to those that attacked his character-city spends at least $1 million (probably $1.6 million), everyone named in suit has to get their own lawyer, DF spends $100,000-victory DF
6) Margo Ely decides to stand up for principle sake, refuses to apologize, refuses to settle-loser taxpayer
7) All the lawyers involved (except Margo)-victory

Legal Fees will be over 2 million,

You quoted the Sun:

The city has budgeted $350,000 for continuing litigation in its 2010 budget, which the council is expected to approve next month.

But left out the next sentence:

“At this point in time we are not recommending removal or reallocation of that amount until we have a fully executed settlement in hand,” City Manager Doug Krieger said.

So if I were you, I wouldn't yet count that $350K as money not well spent.

Dick Furstenau did not spend 2 million dollars of taxpayer money.

Margo Ely advised the city council to spend/waste the money.

This case could have been handled much less expensively.

Why did the inside legal staff of Margo Ely not handle this case and save the taxpayers 2 million dollars?

This delayed disclosure of legal fees is very disturbing.

All the city had to do is say we apologize. Big deal. Now the taxpayers have lost $2 million because the city could not say we are sorry to have brought false charges against an innocent man.

What kind of ego does this city have that sorry does not exist in its vocabulary? How many more lawsuits will be forthcoming because we can't say sorry to people that we may have wronged or not wronged.

When I bump someone in a bar, I say I am sorry whether it is his fault or my fault. It is a good way to avoid a fight and a black eye. I guess the City of Naperville likes a good fight. Or maybe they felt this is their chance to redeem themselves after the Napergate Cases bought so much shame to City Hall.

Ok; so the City has decided that Mr. Dickey won’t have to pay the City back for the legal costs of his lawsuit. I’m working on getting over that, But how about if the City forces him to pay back the time that so many employees gave up in order to save their co-workers jobs. Some employees gave up a week’s worth of pay to save others. They gave of themselves; they showed humility by sacrificing their time and money. How about you pay them back Mr. Dickey! Even better, how about you just learn humility!

According to Ely, the city has spent about $1 million in defense costs for the case.

“We were at about $1 million a month ago,” Ely said. So far, the city has spent $989,135.84 on legal bills, Ely said. That does not include bills to two of the attorneys defending the case, and no bills for March.

The city has budgeted $350,000 for continuing litigation in its 2010 budget, which the council is expected to approve next month.


The above is from the Naperville Sun. Two attorneys involved in the case have not been paid a penny. Another $350,000 is budgeted for 2010. According to the Daily Herald another $600,000 is being budgeted for FISCAl 2010 whatever that means.

This is outrageous spending of taxpayer dollars. It is insanity. It just can't all be blamed on Frugal Furstenau.

I think the entire legal dept. of the City of Naperville should submit their resignations and not just Margo Ely. This is irrational spending of taxpayer money....it is irrational exuberance to the nth degree.

There has been no deal struck in writing yet. It is still being negotiated.

My understanding is Dick and Sean may withdraw since the City of Naperville violated the confidentiality agreement by leaking the story to the Dailey Herald.

It appears Margo Ely's legal office leaked the story to the Daily Herald and possibly voided the settlement.

Expect Dick to proceed with his case and at least demand an apology with no money. Is Margo going to spend another 2 million dollars of taxpayer money instead of giving a simple apology?

If so, we know who to squarely blame for this squandering of millons of dollars of taxpayer money. This is becoming Napergate II as it is evolving into a financial and legal mess. I am concerned that the records will soon be shredded as part of the settlement.

If the city is not conceding something why is it negotiating a dismissal. If there is no case the Judge will eventually dismiss the case. The Jury will rule in favor of the city. It appears the city is fearful of losing and the accompanying legal expenses and is settling for a tie. A tie like kissing ur sister.

I say the combatants should take it to the battlefield. Otherwise all this taxpayer money was wasted so we can kiss our sisters. Goodness gracious. Only in Naperville are 100 dollar bills burned day and night.


The only difference between the outcome of this case and the ultimate outcome if DF had pursued it to the end and lost is that he does not need to worry about the slight chance that the judge might have made him pay the defendant's costs. This is not a draw. It's a defeat for DF, and probably ensures that his political career is kaput.



Lawyers in the United States are recommended under American Bar Association (ABA) ethical rules to contribute at least fifty hours of pro bono service per year.

"the (Illinois) Supreme Court’s new pro bono reporting requirement is “intended to serve as an annual reminder to the lawyers of Illinois that pro bono legal service is an integral part of a lawyer’s professionalism.” "

So while I applaud Shawn's work in this area, I hardly find it remarkable.


Actually, I think my favorite case cited on Shawn's website is the victory in the case of a slip-and-fall in the bathroom of a local casino.

Now that's what I call a gen-u-ine defender of liberty !

Hey "Timothy Leary", have you been experimenting with LSD again or drinking from TCE contaminated wells in Lockformer's back yard.
Check out http://www.collinslaw.com/cases and get your facts before you start to hallucinate again on this blog. How many families has Shawn helped battle big business throughout the midwest. He's made many corps think twice about illegal dumping, thus helping future generations as well. Do you have something against making some money on those that do wrong or are you a communist/socialist too.Check out the pro bono section...that's Latin for FREE twit....

To :Another lawyer guy", DF knew he could not win the civil case. He rec'd counsel saying so, he just wanted to stick it to those that tried to besmirch his character and family name....and I say there is honor and victory in fighting "city hall" to a draw. He wanted an apology (and would have settled for $50K) that's all...and Margo chose to spend not $1 million but close to $2 million now in taxpayer dollars to keep from saying she was wrong.

Poster @ 3:47PM,
You, and your facts, are all wrong. In fact, you appear to be using the same logic that Furstenau used.
The city has been paying their legal bill all along and the total is about one million NOT two. The city can only defend itself against what the plantiff brings. Furstenau wanted to rope any and all who spoke out against him and forced the city to spend this money. DF is not the all-knowing Oz. He is a fool who got exposed for being a bully. All at a cost to the taxpayer that he claims to defend.

Dick sued the City. The City did not sue Dick. The blame for any and all of the cost is at the feet of Dick.

Dick and his followers like to blame others for their own faults. Had Dick not made contact with the officer, there would have been no arrest. Had Dick not sued the City, there would be no cost to the taxpayers. I'm sick and tired of someone with a 2nd grader "It's not my fault I did it" attitude sitting on Council. You will never win another election in this town again, Dick, and you only have to look in the mirror to find who to thank.

Anonymous ONE

Good Heavens! you think I am one in the same as Never Flinch?

Point One: I am anti-Furstenau's actions in this case and pro-police. She is pro-Furstenau and anti-anyone-and-anything to do with city council and the city. She is also a frequent poster of expansive and rambling tirades often only loosely relevent to the topic of the blog, and usually of very suspect logical basis. She is, in a word, a Napergatian.

Point Two: I hope I write better and more clearly than that!


Everyone has got this case wrong.

Margo decided to spend 2 million dollars on a frivilous case and the city council rubber stamped her. They should have handled this petty case in house and saved us 2 million dollars. Someone needs to give a Mental Exam to all city officials both elected and appointed.

Can you imagine we are just now learning that 2 law firms have yet to be paid from the begining of the case? Can you imagine that most of Februrary and March bills have not yet been paid to the one law firm that is mostly current? Can you imagine the legal expenses have not been accounted for yet...only the legal fees!

This does smell like the Napergate Case from a point of transparency and accountability. It is done more cleverly by piece mealing it to us so we can better absorb the beating the taxpayers took over the last 2 years because Margo hired high powered law firms to handle a minor case without capping their fees. Of course they are going to milk the taxpayers and infact did. Did anyone of these law firms promise Margo a partnership for the 2 million she potentially will end up handing out when all is done and said?

This case now gives us a little insight into what the Napergate Cases may have cost the taxpayers. As you all recall the records in that 10 year case all disappeared. If the city can spend 2 million dollars on a case before it even went to a trial or appeal, it makes you wonder what they spent on the Napergate Case without ever telling us.

In that case there were battles in a Kangaroo Court set up in City Hall, at the Illinois Liquor Commission, in Dupage Courthouse and in Federal Court. Plus everything was appealed at least one level.
It is easy to conclude our city officials spent 10 million on that 10 year saga. I think we need full accountability on that case and the current case. Late is better than never.

We need to know why we have to spend so much money on these case. Why can't we use run of the mill attorneys when really not that much is at stake except a few egos that may be hurt if the City loses?

Many of the city officials and city council men who handled the Napergate Case also handled the Furstenau Case. At some point they need to be held accountable for these massive and unwarranted legal fees.

Blaming DF for all these legal fees is simply too easy and a smokescreen to hide the incompetence of those who authorized these execessive fees over a case they described as FRIVILOUS from Day One. You don't spend this kind of money on frivilous cases. There were no serious or devastating consequences to losing.

Yes, Margo Ely needs to submit her resignation. Just like the former City Attorney did after the Napergate Fiasco. He did not say he was resigning because he cost the taxpayers 10 million in the Napergate Cases and all the repeated losses the City took, but it was well understoond that is the reason he retired. At least he showed some class. I wonder if he ended up one of the 3 law firms where he squandered 10 million of hard earned taxpayer money.

Now it is Margo's time to show some class and resign. No one is asking her to commit suicide for wasting taxpayer money as is required in Japanese culture. Only resign so a more frugal attorney can take the helm of her legal department. There was no dismissal of the DF Case. There was obviously a secret settlement that no one is able to talk about. It appears there was a secret settlement in the Napergate Case that muzzled the Napergate Man who was once very local. We as taxpayers need to know how much City Officials paid the Napergate Man to quiet him down after all his victories. We don't know the legal fees in that case and we don't know the price of muzzling a citizen. We have a right to know! It is our money being used for these extravaganzas.

I am sure DF is also being muzzled for a price. Anything secret should be unacceptable to the taxpayers. DF just did not agree to dismiss this case for no reason. He was offered SOMETHING! What was he offered??? As taxpayers, we have a right to know how much of our money is being spent and for what purposes.

PLEASE RESIGN MARGO ELY! We had enough of taxpayer money being squandered by you and your legal department with the approval of our city council in secret executive sessions minus DF and minus input from the taxpayers. That is a formula that is UNACCEPTABLE!

The settlement needs approval through a vote by City Council before it can happen. Furstenau should not be allowed to just walk away from all this without paying for it. He needs to compensate those he wrongfully implicated in his lawsuit.

They have already been vindicated, and prevailed through dismissal from the case, so they should not have to foot the bill for DF's folly. Neither should the taxpayers. Furstenau should pay up!!!

The defendants who were dismissed were forced to defend themselves in this case, despite the fact that it was without merit, and blatantly retalliatory to implicate them. He is truly a hypocrite if he doesn't, and each of them should retain the right to pursue compensation from Furstenau, and Collins. Collins should be liable for this too, as he allowed Furstenau to do it, and he abused the court system by targeting these innocent defendants.

Members of City Council, please don't let Furstenau get off the hook on this.

Never Flinch,

No matter how much you try to spin this, your boy lost this case. Had he pursued it to the end and still lost, it's by no means certain that the judge would have required him to pay the city's costs---unless the judge felt the suit was frivolous. If DF had a stronger case (read: the smoking gun that proves his conspiracy allegations), yet still lost, he almost certainly would not have been required to pay the defendant's costs. I think it's safe to conclude from this settlement that DF did not have the hard evidence he needed to prove his case in court.

And where are you getting that the city promised the taxpayers all along that the expenses for this trial would be recouped from DF? To the best of my recollection, the issue of assessing defendant's costs to the plaintiff did not even arise until the case was well along, and was probably a tactic by the city's lawyers to scare Mr. Furstenau into dropping the suit. Again, if DF had had a stronger case, this tactic would not have worked.


P.s. To T.B.: Thanks.

I too am a lawyer. I also know DF and admire many things about him. But that doesn't change the facts.

Fact - DF initiated and pursued this lawsuit against the City and its officials.

Fact - DF won zero money.

Fact - every substantive ruling went in favor of the City.

Fact - the City's paid DF zero money.

Fact - City officials report to have spent about one million dollars to defend this lawsuit.

Conclusions -

The City's legal position was correct.

Ms. Ely as chief legal officer of the City provided sound legal advise.

The lawyers won.

The taxpayers lost.

Floyd the Barber,
Thank god you are a retired Judge because your ability to think seems to be gone.
Opinion: Dick Furstenau didn't make the city pause, he made the city close the walls in around him. He tried to take his bullying to a new level, that of a civil rights case, and he got crushed. NOT ONE THING WENT HIS WAY IN THIS CASE. The city , correctly, defended not only its employees but the taxpayers from being run rough-shod over by a guy that didn't have the facts on his side. The city spent about 1 million on this case. But it was to DEFEND people that did no wrong. To me that is what we need more of in this country. People taking a stand aginst those who are only out to line thier pockets with other peoples money. Dick wanted to retire on the taxpayer and now he should just retire.

FACT: I know Dick Furstenau... he's not a friend of mine... and you sound just like him!

FACT: If your friend Shawn Collins wants to help the little guy so much ask him to stop screwing us common little folk called the taxpayer. We have it pretty rough right now and could use someone looking out for us and not someone trying to stick it to us with crappy legal arguments. 204 and now this case... gheez, move back to Lisle already would ya Shawn? We don't need your kind of help. Really, we'll be okay without you.


I agree with you all the way. This was a legal victory for the city. DF’s case was crumbling—defendants were being tossed and he was ordered to take a mental exam to verify his claims.

Personally, I think Collins did DF no favors by over-reaching and adding defendant after defendant. Had he stuck with the original charge (the false arrest allegation) he may have been able to present a case.

Whether you think DF was right or wrong, this was miss-handled by Collins and DF both legally and in the “court of public opinion”.



But before we show her the door there is one little matter that needs to be taken care of... and it has to do with ethics, conflict of interest, and avoiding the appearance of wrongdoing. NONE of our city employees have written agreements to prevent them from quitting and immediately going to work for any of the city contractors they previously were responsible for supervising or managing. This is just plain wrong and the city council needs to address this glaring omission.

A few years ago we even had a sitting city council member resign to go to work for a local law firm that has constant business in front of the city council. Again an obvious abuse of power and an obvious misuse of insider knowledge and connections to leverage the business interest of a law firm in front of the city council in the years to come. There probably isn't any way to legally prevent this with elected positions no matter how wrong or bad it appears or turns out in the end... and in this example it has been bad for the citizens of Naperville... very, very bad and at the expense of the profiting of that law firm, their business interests and their clients business interests. Once again the establishment plays by good old boy network set of rules and lets the average joe who pays their taxes and lives in this town pounding sand. So while elected positions might be off the table... let's face it would city council members actually vote to restrain themselves in such a manner? Not likely. Regardless, the city council can and should address the employment practices of city employees. It is long overdue.

Even the corrupt City of Chicago finally put an ordinance in place that prohibits city employees from working for a contractor for a period of one year after leaving city employment. Considering the complex web of relationships that exist it probably would be better to make it 2 or even 3 years instead of just 1 year.

But let's face it we are all going to look pretty stupid if Ms. Ely either quits or gets fired and ends up working for one of the firms that just milked us out of $2,000,000.

Hey uh, "Never Flinch" and uh "Original Joe", are you guys lawyers or just play one on TV, ur uh Blog TV.

FACT: I've been a lawyer and now a retired judge.....

FACT: You guys are clueless.

FACT: I know Dick Furstenau....Dick Furstenau is a friend of mine...you're no Dick Furstenau!

FACT: Dick made "the City" pause, blink & think, "how much is this worth?"...and believe it or not....citizens of Naperville, this was a victory for you too. The next time they try to trample someone under their feet, that someone might be you or a family member.....and the guy that has consistently taken cases (sometimes for free) for the "little guys" against the "big guys" is Shawn. Win some, lose some but he always fights for the rights of those that have been wronged or damaged by big business or big govt. I told him congratulations last night at Shawn's belated St. Patrick's Day celebration. Too bad you legal geniuses weren't there to see what a real lawyer's office looks like.

Ya think officer Hull will be promoted any time soon? That's why he's still writing parking tickets and walking a beat. This isn't the first time this guy has screwed up, trust me on that.....and that was about to become common public knowledge.

Get Real on March 24, 2009 12:19 AM
- somehow 'Never Flinch' and 'I have always posted Anonymous, I will always post Anonymous and you can ask the moderator if I am anonymous' have both turned this into a victory for Dick


Get Real and Never Flinch two different people? Yeah Right!! Back to same old same ol, only now our "clever" friend uses an anonymizer. Be careful GR / NF, remember what happened last time when you challenged the moderator to prove you were not the same person?

DF got out of what was obviously a losing case in order to try to save face - except in his case there is very little left.

Well, at least someone on the plaintiff's side will have to eat their own costs in bringing the case. Even if the attorney took the case on a contingency, there are still filing fees, deposition costs, and expert fees (maybe). Either the plaintiff or the attorney will have to eat these costs.

If you ask me, the straw that broke the plaintiff's back was the mental examination. The plaintiff didn't want to go through with it. It would be highly embarrassing and the information elicited could be devastating. Say what you will about the defense attorneys, getting the judge to agree to the mental examination was a stroke of genius.

Get Real,

Why blame DF and SC for everything?

Who authorized the spending of this 1 million that the city is revealing and hinting it will soon total to 2 million? Try to read between the lines in the article published in the Sun today. The city is getting us ready for the true cost by beginning to leak the truth.

Why did the City play with DF if he was just playing? They should have assigned a lousy attorney to handle the case, if in fact there was no case as u and others seem to feel. Why do you spend 2 million in pre-trial costs on a worthless frivilous suit? Who really needs their head examined here? I think it is Margo Ely and the 8 other council men who wasted taxpayer money by authorizing no stone to be left unturned in their attempt to fully destroy DF. DF was not fully destroyed. He held them to a draw. Yes, he could not defeat them like the Napergate Man did but at least he held them to a draw. No one said beating City Hall is easy and we all know the Napergate Man was one in a million. A man who simply would not FLINCH in 10 years of battling City Hall.

If the city was winning, they would have not accepted DF's deal. They would have proceeded to trial, beat DF, and forced him to pay the 5 million in legal fees. They chose to settle because they did not see a "for sure" victory. So one can not say the city won. One can not say DF won. Neither won and both lost. Sean Collins lost big time since he took the case on a contingency. The only winners r the 3 law firms the city retained that milked the taxpayers by pretending a "he said she said" case was a life or death case.....that it was the CASE of the CENTURY. What a joke they played on Margo Ely! Unbelievable that she could be so naive to think this case was worth a penny more than 25k to defend. Why the h@ll did she not cap the legal fees on these greedy attorneys? They played her for a fool. She needs to resign immediately. She has cost the taxpayers 2 million dollars. She is not worthy of holding office in City Hall. Sorry but the facts speak for themselves.

And let us not forget special thanks to Naperville's own Shawn Collins who is now best known in town for:

---helping a group of parents angry about school boundaries cost district 204 undisclosed money defending a lawsuit he admitted up front had little chance of succeeding.

---costing many of the same taxpayers over $1M for a civil rights lawsuit that was dependent on so many defendents and so much complexity that it collapsed as it was unravelled strand by strand by the judge.

Thanks to you too Shawn.

From what I see:
- DF, our beacon of personal integrity, principle, and bravery has caved under mounting pressure and growing obviousness of the hopelessnes of his cause. Even 'Never Flinch' as much as called him a coward compared to her hero the napergate man.

- somehow 'Never Flinch' and 'I have always posted Anonymous, I will always post Anonymous and you can ask the moderator if I am anonymous' have both turned this into a victory for Dick. Not sure how you get a victory out of what ammounts to Dick's "I'll drop my case bacause I am going to lose. But only if you promise not to make me pay all the money I have cost the taxpayer. Pleeeeaaase?" That sounds like a dog running away with his tail between his legs to me.

Dont get me wrong -- DF did the sensible thing here. He was going to lose and probably have to pay the city's costs. He couldnt afford it so he swallowed hard and pulled back his ego and dropped the suit. Unfortunately not before this protector of the taxpayer and paragon of virtue and integrity cost the taxpayers $1M in the process. Thanks Dick. Thanks a lot.

Explain to me again why I should be so happy he is "on my side?"

Sadly DF and Shawn Collins finally flinched. The city was crumbling under the weight of the massive legal fees. If they would have hung on a little longer they could have gotten the settlement they wanted. The city was twice as deep in legal fees as they were revealing publicly.

I guess the one lesson DF and SC did not learn from the Napergate Man is to never FLINCH. Flinching in a court battle will destroy any party.

Both parties ended up FLINCHING in this case and neither accomplished any of their goals. The taxpayers took it up the WAZOOOOOOOOOOOO!


OJ and JQP,

Yes, this is all nonsense. I think the nonsense is all about Margo Ely.




Here is why:

She lost complete control of the purse strings to this case. We are now being told the legal fees r $989,135.84.

But that does not include half of February and all of March.

And now we are being told that does not include any legal bills to 2 of the 3 law firms that were defending the various parties in the City.

And that this does not include all the travelling, copying, faxing, transcript costs and whatever else comes with the territory of these lawsuits.

I had earlier estimated 2 million dollars had been sent and now the city pretty much confirms that they may have spent 2 million and not one million as they wanted us to believe. Imagine spending all this money and the trial has not even started. I guess with DF part of the council they could not hide the legal fees like they did in the Napergate Saga.

How in the world can a competent lawyer for the city allow the squandering of nearly 2 million dollars over a 100k lawsuit? This is insanity. This is fiscal ruthlessness.

The city(we the taxpayers) lost this case because they/we are out 2 million bucks. They told us they would get the money back from Furstenau when they won. Well, if it is so easy to win, why did they not proceed to victory and get our money back. DF owns real estate in town, has a nice home and a nice job. WE could have at least gotten some of it back.

In my opinion the city surrendered its rights because it felt it had a greater chance of losing. DF also surrendered his right because he could not afford the 5 million dollars in legal fees in the event the 5% chance he had of losing occured. U could say DF finally got cold feet. U could say the city finally got cold feet. They both swore they would take it all the way and they both buckled. There was no victor....there were 2 losers.

Knowing how much this case costs in its infancy, should give u an idea as to how much the Napergate Case cost over 10 years. A case that went all the way in both State and Federal Court Systems and resulted in appeal after appeal. Well, at least we finally understand why the city had to bury the costs of the Napergate Case. They were just simply too much and the city knew the taxpayers would have never tolerated them. They knew that no establishment candidates could ever win an election if they were revealed. So they destroyed the records and told Editor Tim West they never kept track and have no records....lol.....

This time they could not hide the records or costs. They partially deceived the taxpayer by being very behind on their dislcosures. Today is the first time they admit that 2 attorneys were not paid at all. Will they ever tell us how much these 2 attorney cost us? When will they pay them and why have they not paid them? After they settle, will they tell us what the last 2 months of legal fees were? Will they tell us what the legal expenses were? Will city officials give us a full transparent disclosure or will they continue playing games as they did in the Napergate Cases.

Margo Ely as an attorney should have been able to control these law firms. She allowed them to railroad her and in essence railroad the taxpayers money.

I think it is time for Margo Ely to take responsibility for this huge waste of taxpayer money and RESIGN.

DF did not hire these law firms. DF did not agree to pay them 2 million dollars. DF was excluded from all these decisions that took place in executive session. DF is the only councilman who realized the stupidity of spending 2 million dollars on a 100,000 case. If our city officials were not so worried about their egos and the 5% chance of losing, they could have retained an average law firm that could have handled this case for 25k. That would have been the practical thing to do.

Did Margo Ely negotiate any limits on these greedy lawyers to protect the taxpayers. Obviously not? Did she try to use her salaried staff for researach to lessen the burden on the taxpayer? My guess is no. What did Margo Ely do while these law firms were milking us dry. Watch the ongoing soap opera while we pay her 150k a year?

I call for her to RESIGN immediatley.

At least the former City Attorney Michael Roth resigned shortly after the Napergate Trials were over. Was it just a coincidence? I doubt it. I think he was pressured to resign after the huge losses in court and the corresponding financial losses to the taxpayers. It is time for Margo Ely to be pressured to resign. She led us down this horrific path. She was the conductor on the locomotive that slipped off the tracks. She must pay dearly for her fiscal irresponsibility.


I do know the Mayor. I said he would not act like DF acted. He would know the proper procedure and would execute upon that procedure. DF did not and wanted to play King on scene which is not the procedure. When the officer rightfully did not allow DF to take control of the situation, it sounds like DF got angry when he didn't get his way and here we are today.

The rest of your nonsense is just that. Nonsense.

Never Flinch,

You're right. I don't know DF. I don't know Mayor Pradel. I don't know Chief Dial, or any other members of our police department. I also don't know anyone who works at city hall, or any members of the city council.

But I never really ventured an opinion about DF or the case, except to counteract some of your bias towards his side. You've taken a definite side in this case by singing DF's praises, talking up the merits of this suit, etc., all the while telling his critics to let the court decide. Now that DF has dropped his case, you're trying to play this up as some kind of personal vindication for him. But he got nothing out of this except a promise NOT to make him pay the city's costs. I don't need to know Mr. Furstenau to know that this was NOT the outcome he wanted. And I know enough about the case to know that the city got the outcome it wanted. Short of the judge throwing the case out, this is as much of a legal victory as the city could hope for.

Tell me: if this is a victory for Doug Furstenau, and you are a personal friend, has he invited you to his victory party?


P.s. BTW, everything you've said about Mr. Furstenau and this case could be true, but that didn't make it a wise decision to launch the lawsuit.

Face it the City paid $2,000,000 to hide the fact that they have a bully of a beat cop who was disrespectful to an elected city council member.

Seems like if there is anyone left in city hall with any common sense or intelligence they will do two things... first they will re-educate the police department to not try to bully city council members when they are doing the job the people elected them to do and second they will realize the city got off cheap for all of the lies and the nonsense they pulled and the next time they mess with Dick it will probably cost them 5 - 10 times what this very expensive lesson cost.


I have seen the Mayor at events giving good advice to cops. He is a former cop and will be always be a cop.

There will never be a 100% separation between a Mayor and the Police Dept. He is not suppose to be directly involved ever but he has been and will continue to be.

Legally, he has no right to be involved.

But I think it is good for the city and residents if he tells a cop who it towing cars and should not be, that he should cease and desist until signs r posted. Why would he act like a potted plant and allow cars to be towed knowing the city would have to reimburse the citizens for the illegal towing fees and possibly be subjected to lawsuits? That would be a waste of taxpayer money. That would be irresponsible. Do u think Mayor Pradel will sit there and let taxpayer money be wasted? Obviously u don't know him.

I can not imagine the Mayor allowing cars to be towed improperly.

I don't think u know the Mayor at all if u think he will stand by and watch citizens get screwed and their cars get towed and taxpayer get burned for the cost.

You are resorting to the Old Joe who would like to start an argument for the sake of starting an argument. I was once told a zebra can never change its stipes. I think that is holding true with u....unfortunately.

This outcome is more than disappointing in light of the disgusting amount of tax dollars spent. I always thought Dick was a big mouth, but to be a coward on top of it all- tsk tsk. He was the one standing on principle because he was "falsely arrested"...a police conspiracy. Then when the case begins to crumble and he might actually lose a few dollars, he picks up his toys and goes home?

I'm not sorry the case is over and the financial hemorrhaging has ended. I just feel we deserve some sort of an explanation and perhaps an apology to the taxpayers (and maybe all the individuals he named in this absurd suit) is in order. Dick has to GO. I doubt that he has the common sense to resign and if he dares to run for office again, I will gladly campaign against his re-election. JERK!

John Q. Public,

When there is an out of court settlement pushed by the Judge neither party really wins or loses.

DF did not care how much the city spent on his case....it was nothing he could control or in his power? It did not reflect on him since he was excluded from executive sessions of the city council meetings that are held in secret and that dealt specifically with his case.

Yes, I am rendering opinion based on the facts as I know them.

When a Judge makes a ruling he is also rendering an opinion based on the facts as he knows them.

Guess what in 99.99% of most cases the Judge and Jury were also not there or anywhere close.

When I say DF touched the cop, I am giving the City of Naperville the benefit of the doubt in order to render my opinion for whatever it may be worth.

At least I know DF personally and know what he is capable of doing and not capable of doing.

I don't believe u know him, thus my opinion may carry a little bit more weight than ur opinion. U r judging a person who u most likely never met.

U r developing ur opinion on what bloggers post here. Most have an axe to grind. Watch a city council meeting and observe how CM John Rosanova tries to egg DF on and get under his skin. DF bascially ignores him. The only CM who needs anger management in my OPINION is CM Rosanova.

To: Never Flinch if you expect to beat City Hall

It sounds to me like you really don't know Mayor Pradel that well if you think he would have acted just like DF. Mayor Pradel has far more class than DF ever will and would not act like that.

I would gladly pay $1500 a year more in taxes to ensure DF did not receive one dime from the city for his stupidity.

Just because bloggers say DF yelled and pushed the cop, does not make it so. He did not. He was just trying to tell the cop what he did was inappropriate. While I was not there, I have no doubt he touched the cop gently to make his point. He is a gentle person who is not threatening and has never battered anyone in his life..let alone a cop.

The only relevant point you made here is that you were not there that day. The rest of it---in fact, the rest of your post---is just opinion. Just as it's my opinion that, from a legal standpoint, the city won this suit by a landslide. I'll say it again: I don't think DF's goal was to get the city to spend a lot of money. If he couldn't get an apology and reimbursement from the city for his campaign, then he wanted a court of law to say that the NPD and, by extension, the city, should never have arrested him in the first place. He got none of that.


Let us not slice, dice and split peas.

Of course when I say the City of Naperville got beat that translates to the Naperville Taxpayers.

No City Official ever has had a penny at risk with his or her behavior.

While one can rationally or irrationally conclude in this case, DF was a bad fella because we never got the truth, in the Napergate Case we got the truth.

Who paid the price?

The City Officials or the Naperville Taxapyers. Of course the Naperville Taxpayers even though they did not do anything wrong. I think it is time to start holding City Officials responsible so they don't fight cases to protect their egos.

Anyway u slice, dice or spilt hairs, it would have been cheaper to pay DF 100k than to pay these law firms 2 million dollars when u factor in expenses and potential bonuses. I doubt people r just going to line up and start suing Naperville just because the City settled a questionable case.

They could have settled it secretly like the Napergate Case without revealing the amount in order to deter frivilous lawsuits where someone is suing simply for monetary gain. Keep in mind lawyers do not take frivilous lawsuits on contingency and can also be sanctioned and lose their licenses if they bring forward frivilous lawsuits. So that argument that city supporters being up repeatedly falls flat on its hind.

In my opinion the City's action in the DF case do not make any sense. They were too costly to the Naperville Taxpayers at a time the City was facing an 11.5 million budget deficit and a 61.5 million pension deficit that may approah 100 million by next year if Obama's stimulus plans fail.

Hopefully, they won't fail since the Stock Market(Dow Jones) was up 497 points today in one of the strongest rallies ever indicating they possibly may be working.

John Q. Public,

When u speed the city police hammers you with a 100 dollar speeding ticket. It is a fine. It hurts. They send a message to you.

The city may have abused DF....at least certainly in his mind if not our minds. He made them pay a 2,000,000 dollar fine. He made them pay up the WAZOO! They will not mess around with him again in the same way they never messed around with the Napergate Man again.

The city may have learned a second time if u mess around with individuals who are politically opposed to ur policies, there is a heavy price to pay.

Again, if Mayor Pradel touched that cop on his shoulder and told him, how dare u tow cars with no signs being posted, no charges would have been forthcoming. Police Chief Dial would never charge former cop Pradel for such a thing. If u believe otherwise, you are ill informed or simply naive....not trying to be offensive just trying to make a practical point.

And don't tell me Mayor Pradel is not capable of telling a cop what is wrong from right. Don't tell me Pradel is not capable of touching a cop to make a point. Pradel is a brave man who is law and order. Pradel is no wimp despite being known aas Officer Friendly. He is no nonsense. He would have done the same exact thing Furstenau did that day. He is very resident friendly and would never allow Naperville Residents to have their cars towed with no signs posted. And the cop would have listened to him instead of argue with him.

I know Pradel very well. While I can not read his mind, I can specualte he would have acted in the same way Furstenua acted. Just because bloggers say DF yelled and pushed the cop, does not make it so. He did not. He was just trying to tell the cop what he did was inappropriate. While I was not there, I have no doubt he touched the cop gently to make his point. He is a gentle person who is not threatening and has never battered anyone in his life..let alone a cop.

"In some funny way DF may have won. He made the city pay in essence what amounted to a $2 million plus fine for harassing him. He did not have to pay his attorney a penny since he took it on a contingency basis.
So the winners are the law firms the city hired and Dick Furstenau.
The losers are the Sean Collins Law Firm and the City of Napervlle who took it up the wazoo in dollars wasted. "


The losers will be the taxpayers because of DF's actions. Many people will ensure no one ever forgets that.

Never Flinch wrote:

In some funny way DF may have won. He made the city pay in essence what amounted to a $2 million plus fine for harassing him. He did not have to pay his attorney a penny since he took it on a contingency basis.

I don't think this is any kind of victory for DF. He got nothing that he was asking for, and if he's the fiscal conservative he claims to be, he can't feel good about how much the city spent.

Dick Tracy,

If Furstenua never had even the semblance of a case as u so suggest, than the City of Naperville was foolish in spending 1 million dollars to defend a 100k case.

Secondly, most high caliber law firms negotiate in advance a bonus to dismiss a case. Just like coaches get bonues for making the NCAA Tourney, Sweet 16 or Final Four. Otherwise they would have no incentive to dismiss the case as they see 4 million more dollar bills laying on the path to the court house. They want to sweep and collect every potential dollar bill.

Since these laws firms dismissed this case in an expediated manner relatively speaking, expect them to milk City Hall for a million dollar bonus.

The cost will be in addition to the other 1 million plus in legal fees. Plus law firms also bill their expenses to the client meaning the City of Naperville and we have not yet heard what the expenses related to this case are. Some law firms charge 3 dollars per fax and 1 dollar per copy. They charge travel expenses and anything u can imagine. These can add up to one third of the legal fees in many cases. Depostiions are expensive and each transcript from a depostion can go for $9.35 a single page. This case is already tens of thousands of pages. Go figure what it all adds up to.

In some funny way DF may have won. He made the city pay in essence what amounted to a $2 million plus fine for harassing him. He did not have to pay his attorney a penny since he took it on a contingency basis.

So the winners are the law firms the city hired and Dick Furstenau.

The losers are the Sean Collins Law Firm and the City of Napervlle who took it up the wazoo in dollars wasted.


In a strictly financial sense, you are right, and I should not have used the word unequivocal. But, in a legal sense, the city appears to have gotten everything it wanted, and DF got nothing---less than nothing, if he had to bargain to get the city not to seek reimbursement for it's legal fees.

Of course, this assumes that the Herald's story is substantially correct. I am curious as to why, so far, the only reference to this story in the Sun is right here in this blog. Did the Herald jump the gun?


Keyboard Rambo,
City wasn't bilked out of anything. They defended, correctly from what it sounds like, their employees from a bully who tried to use the courts to get his way. Furstenau ran up the legal bills for the city by his inability to see the truth of the matter. He never had a case in the first place. His lawyer gave him bad council, but we all know that is what Shawn Collins is best known for.

JQP - I don't think this is an unequivocal victory for anyone but the law firm that was able to bilk the city out of millions of dollars to defend against a $100k lawsuit.

To: Anonymous on March 23, 2009 11:38 AM

Was contact on accident or on purpose?

We need to see what the final terms are, but if the report in the Herald is correct, this "settlement" is an unequivocal victory for the city.

To Original Joe on March 22, 2009 11:53 PM,

Nice theory about "purposeful". Too bad it doesn't hold up under scrutiny or in court.

Thank god this mess will hopefully be coming to an end. I wish the council could get our money back from DF without spending yet more $$. I get tired of the continual harangue on this topic and the garden plots too BTW.

I still think someone finally asked themselves the basic question:

Was the contact from DF upon Officer Hull purposeful?

If that answer is a YES, then any arrest and charge that stems from that is 'justified' in the eyes of the law, regardless if it happens on the spot, or X days later.

From the bench trial, we are told that contact was made. Regardless if it was of the 'battery' charge or not, it happened, and it was purposeful. As a result, the subsequent arrest would stand up in court regardless of a guilty/not guilty verdict from the criminal trial.

Therefore, no 'civil rights' were violated.

If DF never made contact at all, or it was an accidental "Gee, I'm sorry, I didn't know you were there when I turned around with my hand extended.. I didn't mean to strike you", then YES, a civil rights lawsuit would have had much better footing.

Make up whatever other supposition reasonings you want to about 'flinching'; the facts remain.

I hope this is now a chapter we can close as a city and move on.

Doesn't anyone find it odd that Dick F. was arrested days after the alleged push or shove of the police officer???...and dooesn't anyone find it odd that when the judge was set to rule in favor of Dick F. and throw out the battery charge that our local asst state's attorney tried to throw in a lessor charge of obstruction at the 11th hour (on the day of court months later) only to have that charge blocked by the judge.....and doesn't anyone find it odd that the officer never called for help or assistance during this supposed assault or asked a superior for guidance on the parking lot in question. Hasn't anyone on this blog ever put their hand on someone's shoulder and pointed in a direction for that person to get a better angle to see what you're seeing? Wouldn't a little more Andy and a little less Barney have saved us all alot of angst, time and money.

Why was it neccessary to tow cars from a lot that wasn't even near or part of the city's celebration that day. You have a city official telling a policeman that those cars belong to VIP guests that are donating time and money to the city and according to a pre-plan document that lot was OK to park in.....but noooooo.....Barney Fife had to enforce the law to the letter even on a centennial type celebration day in our fair city.

Most of our PD officers use common sense when dealing with people. They're trained to deal with people and diffuse conflict, not add to it. I don't think that was the case in this situation. But I also think Dick F. went way too far in his suggestion that this was some kind of conspiracy to damage his political career. He should have enjoyed his victory in court on the battery charge and left it at that. I'm glad for all involved to hear this saga may soon be coming to an end.

P.S. Does anyone else think Naperville's Mayor Pradel looks alot like Mayberry's Mayor Pike?

Original Joe,

You may be right. But most attorneys I talk to indicate there is a little Russian Roulette that goes on in our court system.

Unless something is clear as the grass is green and the skies and oceans are blue, Judges and Juries can rule in unexpected ways and surprise you. Think for a second about the OJ case, OJ. (Did not mean to associate you with him but your initials are conincidentally the same.)

Maybe both sides flinched and sadly we will never know the truth as to what happened despite the fact that we taxpayers paid over a million dollars so far.

You have to try to put yourself in DF's situation to understand and comprehend what happened. At some point he and his attorney realized their case was not a SLAM DUNK case because of decisions the Judge was making. It could be the Judge met with them and advised them not to proceed in a back room conference which happens often in our court system. If the Judge advises you not to proceed and settle and you don't listen to the Judge you're screwed royally if you proceed. It could be the Judge also scared city officials. That is how Judges get settlements. They scare both sides into settling. This particular Judge may have frightened both sides into finally FLINCHING!

And no doubt DF and SC were more scared. Even if there was only a 5% chance of them losing, a 5% chance of having to pay the 5 million dollars the city was willing to cough up in legal fees would have devastated both Shawn Collins and Dick Furstenau.

Would you proceed on a case OJ, if you had a 75% chance of winning but if you lost, you would be wiped out of all your assets and life time savings? I know I would not. The city in some ironic way checkmated DF by spending so much in legal fees that he could one day be liable for. I don't know what kind of money DF has, but very few businessmen or employees are worth 5 million or more.

I think the City of Naperville spending money on this case like drunken sailors had a lot to do with DF and SC finally flinching and settling.

In the Napergate Man case the city probably had an idea how much the Napergate Man was spending. I guess his attorneys were required to disclose it and if I recall it was only about 74k. So a city with the budget of Naperville is not going to flinch over having to pay 74k which I believe they ended up paying after the 7th Cirucit Court of Appeals ruled against them by a decison of 2-1. (Case link was posted by TB on this blog site so that is where I get my information from.)

Yes, the city outspent the Napergate Man by a 100-1 ratio on legal fees and you would think this would make them flinch as they would be accountable to the taxpayers. But when that case was all done and said, the City of Naperville simply refused to disclose the amount they spent on the case. Not even to estbalishment friendly Editor Tim West who had demanded it and was outraged he could not obtain it. Imagine Tim West being outraged. I know that is hard to imagine but that one time he was outraged. But he did not pursue the legal fees when the city in essence blew him off. They may have told him to back off this one time and he did them a favor and backed off. Do I know this for a fact? Of course not. I am simply specualting. He could have persisted with a Notice to Produce but he did not to the best of my knowledge. But the bottom line is we don't know what kind of money was spent in the Napergate Cases and the folklore is all the records were buried with former Mayor Samuel McCrane in his coffin. Or maybe they were simply shredded. Who knows? It remains a mystery and will possibly remain one forever.

Anyway, I think this DF Case was settled because either one side or both sides finally flinched. This case was not as black and white as the Napergate Case. In the Napergate Case he had video tape that proved his innocence. Without that video tape, it would have been a similar case to DF's. So he was fortunate. No one is going to beat City Hall without a VIDEOTAPE. They can hire the best attorneys and have unlimited money to spend on any legal case and usually do. Maybe this is a lesson to learn for anyone who attempts to sue City Hall.

But it still bothers me that the City of Naperville decided to spend so much money on the Napergate Case after they found out their was a videotape. In that case they were spending taxpayer money to protect their egos. Maybe they felt the Napergate Man would flinch since he must have known they were spending millions in legal fees and he would ultimately be responsible if he lost. On the other hand maybe he knew there was no chance he would lose since he knew he was "right" as you stated and had the evidence to prove it.

In summary, no one should be surprised this DF case settled. Almost 99% of the cases that enter the court system settle. I know many bloggers were excited to see a trial take place, but in reality and in the real world trials rarely take place. Let us all be happy that only one million of taxpayer money was wasted....it could have easily been 5 million. We owe our thanks to the Judge for making both sides FINALLY FLINCH. That is what a good Judge does. He did his duty and for that, Naperville Residents need to be grateful. I am as I can not afford any further increase in my real estate tax bill. How about you, OJ???

Hey Never Flinch,
The most important thing to have on your side is the truth. Furstenau could have spent a zillion dollars on his eforts, but the truth was against him. How can you say that the Judge didn't like Furstenau? What the Judge didn't like was the poor legal argument that Shawny Collins put in front of him. Glad to see that at the end of all of this we only know one thing, city hall leaks like a sieve. If they are meeting on this Monday how did the Herald get it already?

To: Never Flinch,

Perhaps Sean thought long and hard about a point that was made about whether the officer could legally make the arrest.

You have to have 'right' on your side to beat the city. Not flinching, alone, doesn't cut it.

The NG man had 'right' on his side. DF, in my opinion, didn't.

Original Joe,
This deal being reported by the Daily Herald appears to have some secrecy behind it.

Usually if there is secrecy there is some kind of a deal behind the scenes.

I think both sides buckled because of the legal expenses and the heat coming from the taxypayers.

Even if DF had a 75% chance of winning, in the end if the city spent 5 million dollars and he lost, there is a chance the Judge would order him to pay the 5 million. That would have been devastating. Unlikely, but the possibilty exists since this Judge did not like DF from day one. This may have made him finally flinch. Losing your net worth and life time savings will make 99% of the people flinch. (You wonder why SC did not ask for a change of venue...he is entitled to one I believe)

Obviously it takes a lot of courage to take on City Hall and take it to a final conclusion. I guess the Napergate Man had the courage but apparently Dick Furstenau and Sean Collins did not have the necessary courage required. It became a little too scary for them.

As far as City Officials, they were taking no risk. It was all going to fall on the backs of the taxpayers and they already launched a successful campaign blaming Furstenau for these massive legal fees. If one reads the 10 comments on the Daily Herald blog all our blaming Dick Furstenau. Unfortunately, there was no real price City Officials were paying to preserve their EGOS.

City Officials can buy ink by the barrel and spread the word they want to. They could use their good relationships with the Sun and Herald to spread their side of the story free of charge. Dick Furstenau was not willing to buy ink by the barrel to neutralize the massive negative publicity building against him and his case. The Napergate Man never shied away from buying ink by the barrel before, during and after his lengthy Napergate Trials. He made sure the City of Naperville did not have its way with brainwashing the jury pools preceding jury selection. He succeeded. He was able to seat unbiased and unpoisoned juries to rule in his cases.

I think the lesson to learn here is if you are going to take on City Hall be ready to spend a lot of your money, be determined and be brave enough to suffer the consequences and agony of defeat. Never flinch, no matter what. Once you flinch, you are fried in the court of public opinion.

I believe DF and SC finally flinched. That is what differentiates them from the Napergate Man and his attorneys. They never flinched! Not even once! They were willing to suffer the consequences no matter how pricey or agonizing as long as they had their day in court. That is what it takes to beat City Hall...or don't bother trying.

Sun Editors,

How could you let the Daily Herald with a circulation of about 1600 and on life support get the SCOOP on FURSTENAU over you. You are a dynasty with 16,800 circulation. You are or were The NEWSPAPER.

Let's not be sleeping on our desks.

Let's get with it. Tim West can do a little more than write 3 boring columns a month. It takes 1.5 hours at most to write his 3 columns. What does he do with his other 38.5 hours that he is paid for? Write e-mails to his beloved cat?

Let's please start promoting and diagnosing the upcoming election. How do you expect us to vote without knowledge? What about if someone is on a one week or 2 week spring vacation and misses the one week you are planning on covering the elections? I am sure it was never like this in the past with Sun Officials.

If you continue with these latest patterns you will sign your death certificate 5 years before its time. Yes, newspapers are all collapsing but can't you guys work a little harder and keep the Sun alive for 5 more years. Please! Let us enjoy the Sun before all newspapers without exception go the route of the dinasour.

Time is Running Out.

Thank you, Sean, for coming to your senses.

Looks like the Daily Herald got the scoop on the Naperville Sun! Furstenau is dropping his case! Thanks for wasting 1 Million bucks on your ego Dick. In these financial times I appreciate you looking out for us taxpayers. My wallet is a little thiner now and I have you to blame. Resign already. I'll be sure to remind people of this whole mess if you plan on running for office again.
Thanks for exposing the corruption inside the City of Naperville...it goes by the name Dick Furstenau.

Establishment = Doug Krause.
He has been in office since Ken Small was mayor. Get along to go along. Time for change is right. Krause and Furstenau need to go find a new hobby and leave governing to those who understand it.

Poster @ 11:30,
What a bunch of Cr@p. Naperville is a great place because of the long-time efforts of all that choose to live here and contribute to the town's success. You obviously don't know any of the people in the families you mention. Those families have given more to this town than you EVER will. You can have your leader Furstenau and the Napergate man. Go put your tin-foil hat on and just keep complaininig how "the establishment" has ruined this town. Go look at the state election donation site and you will see that Furstenau took more money from the Brestal law firm than ANY OTHER ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THIS TOWN! Establishment-smablishment. This town is about neighbor helping neighbor. Your cult leader furstenau is trying to use the legal system to rob us blind and you are foolish enough to sit by and just let it happen. Too bad Naperville doesn't have a required IQ test to get in. You and Furstenau never would have made it thru the gate!

Facial Expression

Please tell us who the "Establishment" is. Who leads this organization? Is the Establishment the Naperville chapter of the world Wide Cabal to rule the universe? We constantly see you and others ( are we sure there are re ally others?) posting against "The Establishment"? Is the current term for what in the Sixties was termed "The Man"? You constantly bring up the gentleman involved in the Napergate events. Has anyone considered that he "retired" because he was tired of the craziness that has grown up around his actions?

Naperville has seen an unprecedented run of prosperity over the past 20 years. As is obvious to most now, that run has ended. People are waking up to that fact. Politicians, almost always the last to wake up, will see they have a very angry and unhappy proletariat and will do one of two things to placate the. The Pols will either manufacture a crisis to rally the masses to (the AIG bonus issue - thank you Mr Dodd and Mr Frank) or have an epiphany and lead the city in a new direction. Politicians want to get reelected - it is part of their narcissistic make up. To do that they must make people like them and trust them. The way they do that is to give the masses what they want. In Naperville, that has been more and more development, over the top educational facilities, and all the other excesses the last 20 years have seen grip America. As so went America, so went Naperville.

The pendulum's swing went way beyond center and is now swinging back. Physics teaches us that it will swing as far back in the other direction now (OK - not exactly the same distance - but go with it here for a minute will ya). The politicians will begin to recognize the anger in the masses. One of them will emerge as a crusader against the excess of the past and will want to rally the people, promising reform, yada, yada, yaya (did I hear anyone whisper about "change"?).

Dont worry Facial Expression - change is coming. But it might now be the kind of change you or anyone else wants. Look at what the change on Governor has gotten us.


When you run for City Council u r not running as a Demorcrat or Republican. The city council is not divided against these party lines and never was.

Basically there was only one party in Naperville for over 160 years. It was the Establishment Party.

Sometime in the early 1990's the Napergate Man started a Napergate Party to begin challenging the entrenched Establishment. He would take numerous full page ads and endorse a slate of Napergate Candidtates to compete with the Establishment Candidates. The Establishment candidates always had the big bucks and the support of the Establishment. The Establishment mostly consists of the founders of this town like the Mosers, Wehrlis and many other older families. They watch out for each other. They enrich each other. They allow establishment folks to construct builidngs like the Promenade with little or no parking requirements. They subsidize the downtown which is mostly owned by old time families who are Establishment.

The Establishment is very powerful. If you want to build anything in Naperville and have a chance of having it approved, it must go through the Brestal Law Firm. Almost 99% of projects went through the Brestal Law Firm before the Napergate Man exposed that this firm was giving large contributions to all city council members who were voting on his projects.

After the Napergate Man exposed these contributions in his ads and called it cronyism and corruption, these contributions suddenly stopped. There has been no evidence of a contribution from the Brestal Firm to any council man running for office in Naperville since the exposure. However the Brestal Law Firm will and has contributed roughly 2000 dollars to any city council member who runs for state office. They obviously do not consider that a conflict of interest. I guess the hidden message to City Council members is we no longer can give u contributions but if u behave yourselves and rubber stamp our projects if u want to run for higher office we will support u. If u don't rubber stamp our projects, we will not support u in ur pursuit of higher office.


(In an ironic twist, the Brestal Law Firm supported DF with $2000 when he ran for state representative....not because they liked him but because they wanted to see him off the city council as he was a thorn in the buttocks with his questions exposing conflicts of interest between establishment candidates and establishment developers such as allowing CM Wehrli to vote on his cousin's projects, Developer Wehrli of Crestview.)


Since the Napergate Man retired in 2001, it has been estbalishment folks running against establishment folks. When he ran election ads from 1995 -2001 that covered 4 elections, he was very successful in getting 2 to 4 of his endorsed candidates elected each time. One time he got all 4 of his candidates elected but did not have the majority in the city council since the 5 who did not have to run that year were all Establishment. I can not recall if that was 1997 or 1999 when he got all 4 elected. I think he had just won his court battles and the residents were frustrated with the huge amount of money the city had spent fighting him for nearly 10 years in so many courts and appellant courts before they finally surrendered. He just knew how to ride the sentiment at the time.

Anyway, the Napergate Man never formally announced his retirement. I think his last battle was Spring Green in which he was instrumental in rallying his subdivision and many nearby subdivisions in preventing the City Council from installing a gas station/commercial shopping center smack in the middle of Pembroke Commons/Huntington Estates. After that he has never been heard of. Some say he still lives in Naperville...others say he moved to Arizona and retired.

Anyway to make a long story short we are back to one party rule. The new council members that are elected are put on a pension plan and they begin rubber stamping everything...especially the corrupt and bankrupt pension system of the City of Naperville. In essence the new city council members r bought with a pension plan, full health beneifts, expense accounts and a very decent salary for the few hours they work each month.

Even some of the Napergate Candidates deserted the Napergate Man after he retired and went for the almighty dollar bill. Yes, the saying that money corrupts is so true. Naperville is now heading down the wrong path. Eventually the chase of the almighty dollar will send the City of Naperville down the path of Enron, World Com, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch and Bear Sterns.

Other than Furstenau no one is voting his consicence on the city council these days. They are voting how the Establishment wants them to vote. End of story.

Poster @ 6:24pm,
What if DF doesn't win his case? Should he resign?
What is an anti-establishment candidate and what do they stand for? DF is a long-time republican, so do you mean democrats? I have no idea what bloggers mean when they say "establishment" in this town...


Very well said.

I agree with most of what u said.

However if DF wins as I believe don't expect any employees from the city to be held accountable or terminated. You need to have a majority in the city council of anti-establishment candidates for this to happen.

After the Napergate Man won, I recall no one was held accountable No one resigned. No one was fired. City Officials got some egg on their face but after that it was business as usual.

They refused to be held accountable. Even Editor Tim West of the Naperville Sun could not get them to provide the costs of the Napergate Trials despite being furious. They simply told him we don't have the records. We did not keep track of the costs.

When and if DF wins, City Officials will get egg on their faces. They will maintain a low profie for a week or two and resurface like nothing ever happened. They will never launch an investigation to hold any employees accountable for the potential waste of 5 million dollars of hard earned taxpayer money.

The only hope citizens have to change the way business is done, is to go out and elect new candidates.

This may not be an easy task. I read the local and regional newspapers and I have not heard one thing about one candidate in the Naperville Municipal Election. I can not even name a single candidate. I don't even know the date of the next election except that it may be in April some time.

In the old days the Napergate Man thru his Napergate Ada was competing with the Naperville Sun to provide intense election coverage. Now that the Napergate Man retired and the Daily Herald is literally on life support, the Naperville Sun has gotten very lax in its duties and responsibilities to cover the election. That sometimes happens when your competitors die off. Candidates either don't adveritise or hardly advertise. I have seen no ads from any candidate stating what he or she stands for.

There are a lot of candidates and I guess the Naperville Sun will cover them the week before the elections...at least I hope so. But how can u really become familiar with so many candidates so quickly.

Does anyone know if the Naperville Homeowners Associaiton will have any forums? How about the Women's League of Rights? Can anyone persuade the Napergate Man to come out of retirement and resume his election coverage through his Napergate Ads? To say the least the situation is very frustrating for me and maybe many other residents.

Unless someone steps it up, people will be voting for the candidates who managed to get their names posted the most on various lawns in town.....in many cases in violation of city codes and ordinances. I guess that is the democratic process and way for the City of Naperville.

To Anonymous on March 20, 2009 5:54 PM,

"Facial Expression - "The bottom line is if this cop was touched by DF, he should have had the courage to arrest him on the spot. He did not. Apparently he did not feel DF committed any crime against him. His superiors took 2 weeks to fabricate a case against him since they did not like his positions as far as controlling police excesses such as OT. They sought retribution. That is y DF will win."

Let's not forget for one minute that this is a civil case and not a criminal case. In a civil case the jury does not follow the same rules in determining guilt and the type and amount of evidence that is also entered is handled much differently. I do think that waiting a prolonged period of time to make the arrest will have a very chilling effect upon the police being able to defend this as a justified arrest. On top of that they charged him with a felony and couldn't even get a conviction on a misdemeanor. The nail in the coffin so-to-speak for the police defense in a civil case will be all of the altered police reports. No jury is going to buy all of the lies and fabrications if they are given correct instructions and follow those instruction during there deliberations. The city is facing a huge legal bill and a huge settlement and they know it. That is one single reason the city is spending a small fortune on a defense team. They know their goose is cooked and they are simply hoping the legal team can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

Every single person who was personally responsible for agreeing to change and alter official police documents, every single person who was personally responsible for being part of the closed door discussions and conspiracy to bring felony charges against a fellow sitting city council member, every single person who colluded to censure a fellow sitting city council member can go home and take a good, hard look in their bathroom mirror and stare eye-to-eye with one of the people directly responsible for letting their ego and person political agenda get in the way of good judgement.

These are not good and decent people. They do not reflect the morals, ethics, or values of the majority of the people in Naperville. These people do not deserve to hold elected office nor do they deserve to be employed as civil servants. When the jury finally reaches a verdict we will begin another chapter to this case which will involve addressing the hand each of these people had in this case from beginning to end and then we will need to take appropriate measures to remove them from office or employment to ensure that no other citizen is ever treated to such abuse.

To Mark F on March 20, 2009 5:54 AM,

Nope, that is the law that applies to you and me if we get into fisticuffs. There is another law that specifically addresses peace officers. You are close, but not there yet.

"If Mayor Pradel or CM Miller or Wehrli would have touched the cop to make a point or even in anger, I guarantee you it would not have been an international incident. It would have been looked over...forgotten if u will. Do u agree?"

I really don't know enough about any of these figures to make such a judgment, but I seriously doubt Mayor Pradel, for one, would ever let himself get into that position.

One more thing: DF didn't even need to touch the cop to be guilty of an offense, as obstructing a police officer is also a crime.


If u follow elections DF usually gets over 10,000 votes. I think that is a plural. If I recall correctly he was first endorsed by the Napergate Man in the mid-ninties and has been re-elected at least 2 times. Over 30,000 people have voted for him albeit some 3 times.

Why do u have an issue with plural?

In the Napergate Case he had 2 petitions signed and notarized each having about 3500 signers. What is singular about that?

This blog site really has very few people from either side of any issue. While it may be true that people like the Napergate Man and DF have a few supporters on this blog site, I suspect in real life they have a lot of supporters.

DF could have had a 100 people speak on his behalf in the city council session when he was censured. The Mayor had a time limit of 30 minutes and did extend it allowing 30 or so speakers from all walks of life. Only 1 or 2 people spoke on behalf of the city. The mayor also emphasized to DF supporters that they should only speak if they had something different to say than other speakers. DF supporters listened and suddently DF is criticised for not having enough supporters.

It seems to me the supporters of the city may be more singular than the supporters of either DF or the Napergate Man. Or maybe the city allows employees to blog here if they defend the city and that could account for the 2 or 3 city supporters. I always suspected there were a few police officers on this blog site bashing DF day and night.

Mark F.
I doubt that all of you DF supporters will be able to say and do the same.

All the DF supporters? Plural? I suspect there are as many DF supporters as their are / were Napergatians!!

John Q. Public,

You make another good point. Let us be patient and see what happens.

I was not there to see what happened. I also was not there to see what happened in the Napergate Case.

Juries seem to be told everything from both sides so let us trust them to come up with a fair and equitable verdict.

And I agree that the Napergate Man case was much more complicated than a "he said she said" case. But I think there was something underlying that let this DF case blow up. There was probably something underlying in the Napergate Case that caused that thing to blow up too. The "underlying" whatever it may be is probably political.

If Mayor Pradel or CM Miller or Wehrli would have touched the cop to make a point or even in anger, I guarantee you it would not have been an international incident. It would have been looked over...forgotten if u will. Do u agree?

oops - that go ahead and prove me wrong post was mine.

Facial Expression - "The bottom line is if this cop was touched by DF, he should have had the courage to arrest him on the spot. He did not. Apparently he did not feel DF committed any crime against him. His superiors took 2 weeks to fabricate a case against him since they did not like his positions as far as controlling police excesses such as OT.
They sought retribution. That is y DF will win."

As you recall, the former City Manager Burchard detailed several occasions in which he counseled Dick against his habit of engaging in verbal confrontations with various city staff members. How many times, prior to the '06 incident, did it involve police officers? As the police department had never taken action against Furstenau prior to this date, isn't it just possible that Officer Hull believed that he may not receive the support of his superiors against a bully of a City Councilman? We all know that Dial is not supporting Keating (so much for your professional courtesy theory). And if a person is not arrested on the spot, don't the police have to seek charges with the State's Attorney and get a warrant?

My money is on Officer Hull, Chief Dial, Officer Cross and the DuPage County State's attorney. And if I am wrong, you have my permission to rub my nose in it. I will, in any case accept the decision of the court and not continue to make excuses for why the judge should have ruled the other way. Unfortunately, I doubt that all of you DF supporters will be able to say and do the same. You will continue to whine and make excuses for an undeserving "public servant" who also will not be man enough to accept responsibility for this huge costly mess. Go ahead and prove me wrong!

Facial Expressions etc etc.

"this international incident is all the fault of the City for not posting signs"

This statement is one of the fundamental differences between at least some of the people on this blog who are pro-DF and those who are anti-DF. Many the pro-DFers seem to think that DFs actions that day were justified because his cause was just. Others (myself included) think that stopping cars from being towed simply does not rise to degree of urgency that it excuses a full-on rant at a cop and some sort of agressive physical contact.

Now......I think that towing cars after NOT posting signs is outrageous --- so I thank DF for taking up on the side of truth and justice for pointing out the unfairness of it to the cop. BUT....preventing someone's car from being towed does not excuse DF for the actions he took. He took it too far and got rightly busted. So stand up and take your punishment like a man.

To put it simply.....You think the fundamental issue is about the signs. But DF was not arrested because of the signs. He was arrested because he showed remarkably poor judgement in choosing how to deal with the situation.


And one more thing Facial...............

"exuberates" ?????????

Facial Expression Should Be Captured,

The Napergate Man won because the preponderance of the evidence was on his side, and it was not based on a single, he said-she said incident. The judge is letting this case continue because he apparently feels there is enough doubt about what took place to where a jury should be allowed to rule on the evidence. You should not read this as some kind of sign that the judge feels that DF is in the right.


John Q. Public,

Point well taken. However I am criticised when I try to bring out simlarities. So it slices both ways. I also have a right to criticise a totally irrelevant comparison especially since my comparison has some similarties and relevancy.

Keep in mind it was not me who was the first to note the similarity between the Napergate Case and Furstenau Case.

It was the Naperville Sun in a front page article where they superimposed Furstenau on a Napergate Ad about 2 years ago. I simply agreed with the Naperville Sun.

If people do not see comparisons betwenn the Napergate Man and DF cases, they should debate it with Sun Officials and not me. Having said that I do see comparisons and relavancy between the 2 cases.

They stood up to City Hall and City Officials instructed the police dept to do whatever is in their means and power to destroy them short of physical harm.

Facial Expression Should Be Captured wrote:

What did you do? Change the subject to a case Collins lost. Big
deal? What good attorney has not lost a case?

No, he didn't change the subject. He just pointed out a relevant similarity between the DF case and another of Shawn Collins' cases---kind of the way you keep comparing this case to the Napergate Man case.

Original Joe,

Regarding ur comment

"Just what the heck are u talking about here?"

What I am saying is that police sitting in jury boxes lean heavily towards believing their fellow officers testimony whether truthful or not. Code Blue!

You are acting like police are perfect. Every police officer who speeds or fails to turn on his signal is given Professional Courtesy by his fellow officers. One was given PC for driving while intoxicated with a BAL of well over .08. Are you telling me u r so naive that u don't even realize this? Common Joe, quit acting like Joe the Plumber who thinks he knows it all and is now a self appointed international war reporter...lol...

All I was saying is that jury members have leanings. That is why sometimes they go through 300 to find 12 who have the least leanings and biases. I was saying Collins will be smart enough to elmiminate all cops, relatives of cops and friends of cops from the jury to make sure his client receives a fair trial.

What did you do? Change the subject to a case Collins lost. Big deal? What good attorney has not lost a case? Even the top seeded NCAA tournament teams have lost an average of 4 games each. No one is perfect. It is like saying because Michigan State lost to Northwestern they will most certainly lose to Robert Morris tonight. You just can't come to those conclusions, Joe! Your way of thinking exuberates immaturity and naivety.

If I were on a jury, I would listen to any cop with a grain of salt. Most cops embellish their police reports to make a case stronger than it really is. They will admit it. Any ex-States Attorney will tell u cops embellish their police reports. Sometimes they even lie. I hope I am not telling u anything u don't know.

The bottom line is if this cop was touched by DF, he should have had the courage to arrest him on the spot. He did not. Apparently he did not feel DF committed any crime against him. His superiors took 2 weeks to fabricate a case against him since they did not like his positions as far as controlling police excesses such as OT.
They sought retribution. That is y DF will win.

That is what the heck I am talking about Original Joe. Stop being so blind and biased in your support of the police. Not even Joe from the Fraternal Order of the Police sticks up for his rank and file as u do. Does your brother or another relative work for the NPD? At least TB admitted his brother worked for the fire dept. and we finally got a better understanding of bis biases and leanings. Let us try to understand what the heck are causing your biases for the NPD and against DF who does nothing but watch out for the taxpayers that elected him.

And again this international incident is all the fault of the City for not posting signs in a prompt, clear and visible manner. What the heck don't u get OJ? Honestly!

To: Facial Expression Should Be Captured on March 20, 2009 12:56 AM

One would have thought Mr. Collins would have learned a valuable lesson from the case he lost last year against District 204. That case boiled down to: Did the school district have the authority to do what they did? That answer was a very simple: Yes. People did not have to like what they did, but they had the authority to do it. If I recall, Mr. Collins had reams of reasons, and documentation as to why the people suing were upset, why they felt their rights were being trampled on, etc. It all came down to whether or not the school district had the authority to do what it did or not.

A similar question comes into play here: Did the Officer have the authority to make the arrest of DF and subsequently charge him for the incident? That answer too, is Yes. It is yes because contact was made upon the officer in a purposeful manner. Add in the fact that it was in the middle of an argument while attempting to prevent the Officer from performing his duties and you can call it a bank-shot.

"Most civilians have gripes with police and would like to have the opportunity to slam those who have slammed them for not making a complete stop at an intersection or forgetting to signal on a left turn"

The people I know of that have gripes with the police tend to be the ones who are just mad because they were doing something wrong in the first place and were called to the carpet about it. Are you saying that people who break the rules want retribution against the police because the police have just enforced the law? Just what the heck are you talking about here?

Tell DF to make sure he turns and shows us his best side for the photo. Mr. Collins, if you are reading this then think long and hard about why your case was dismissed last year. Re-read and understand the judge's reasoning. Then, apply the lesson learned.

OK Anon at 11:06 PM-

I looked it up in the Illinois Criminal Code.

(720 ILCS 5/12﷓3) (from Ch. 38, par. 12﷓3)
Sec. 12﷓3. Battery.
(a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.

Sec. 12﷓4. Aggravated Battery.
(b) In committing a battery, a person commits aggravated battery if he or she:
(18) Knows the individual harmed to be an officer or
employee of the State of Illinois, a unit of local government, or school district engaged in the performance of his or her authorized duties as such officer or employee;

The key phrase is "makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature" (like a back hand to the chest loud enough for someone down the block to hear.)

Is that specific enough for you? I suppose you will have some other inane rebuke.

Orginal Joe,

I do hope they capture DF's facial expression and publish it on the front page.

I think DF will be victorious against the cops.

He lost his case against city officials. The Judge dismissed those charges. DF bought them after the fact during moments of anger. They had no basis and the judge correctly dismissed them.

But he found merit against the allegations against the Chief and police officers. He is going to let a trial take place. That speaks volumes. And he only needs to win by a preponderance of the evidence which translates to a feeling of 51% that the cops are guilty. That is a low threshold and DF should be able to pull it off rather easily unless the jury has 6 or more cops or relatives of cops. I am sure Shawn Collins will make sure there are no cops on the jury.

Most civilians have gripes with police and would like to have the opportunity to slam those who have slammed them for not making a complete stop at an intersection or forgetting to signal on a left turn.

Let us see the smile on DF's face when he wins. I am all for it.

To By Resident on March 19, 2009 10:10 PM,

"Any contact with a police officer is arrestable if the officer sees fit. It is called BATTERY-look it up. The only mistake the officer made was not immediately arresting this corrupt bully and hauling him down to booking."

Really? Look what up? I don't have a clue what law or statute or whatever it is you are referring to so can you please be more specific?

If he is corrupt why wasn't he arrested on corruption charges?

If he is a bully why wasn't he arrested for being a bully?

"The only mistake the officer made..." But are YOU SURE that was the only mistake the officer made?

Any contact with a police officer is arrestable if the officer sees fit. It is called BATTERY-look it up. The only mistake the officer made was not immediately arresting this corrupt bully and hauling him down to booking.

To: City Pensions are a Fraud on the Naperville Taxpayer

"I think it has been determined in the courts that DF did not hit a cop. It has not been documented that he even touched a cop. What I am saying is if he gently touched a cop to make a point or get his attention, that is not a crime. The Judge agreed and found DF innocent."

It has been documented in the Bench Trial that contact was made. The judge did rule that it did not meet the threshold of 'battery' but contact was made. I believe the threshold has to do with bodily harm or the likelihood to cause bodily harm. So, the judge's ruling says it was short of bodily harm; but contact was made that could have been up to and just short of that threshold.

He was found 'not guilty' as charged.

I agree, let the courts rule. Making purposeful contact upon a police officer might be short of a 'battery' charge, but it's not a violation of your civil rights if you are arrested and charged for it because the initial contact was made and it was purposeful.

Please, DF, let the courts rule on this one. I hope a reporter is right there to capture on video the facial expression when the verdict is read. I hope the Sun makes it a full-page photo when the time comes.

No law about touching I would imagine. just common sense. its one of those unwritten rules I learned back elementary school. Along with don't eat yellow snow, dont pick a fight with the biggest kid in school (even if he is ugly and stupid), and dont stick scissors in the electrical outlet just to see what happens.

But I am pretty sure there are laws about punching and shoving. And it doesnt have to be a cop.

Imagine the scene....your arguing with a cop. Things are probably getting heated. You reach out for him to....what...hit? punch? shove? jab your self-righteous finger in his chest? or just offer some oh so friendly advice about the finer points of parking regulations?

But hey...I have an idea...next time you see a cop, try touching/punching/shoving him and see what happens. Please be sure to report back to us.

To By Get Real on March 19, 2009 1:32 PM

"You cannot touch/punch/shove a cop."

Really? Which existing law are you quoting to support your statement?

"You ESPECIALLY cannot touch/punch/shove a cop while in the middle of an argument with one."

Double huh? There simply are not any laws in the State of Illinois that addresses conduct while in the middle of an argument with a cop.

City Pensions etc etc --

To hear you tell it, DF gently placed his arm around the officer's shoulder while they were discussing some of the more philosophical aspects of traffic law. Sort of like a father-son moment, eh? Perhaps Dick also offered the cop a lifesaver?


As for city officials trying to tarnish Dick's reputation...I dont think he needs their help. He has done a fine job all on his own.

To Whom it May Concern,

I think it has been determined in the courts that DF did not hit a cop. It has not been documented that he even touched a cop. What I am saying is if he gently touched a cop to make a point or get his attention, that is not a crime. The Judge agreed and found DF innocent.

Cops touch civilians all the time to make their points. Are they God that they can touch but yet can not be touched? This sounds like arrogance to me. If they do not want to be touched than they should keep their hands off civilians unless there is a need to physcially arrest.

Who ever said DF was enraged? I have known DF for 20 years. I have never seen him enraged. He is always cool, calm and collected. Always polite. Yes, he is angry that taxpayers are abused in order that city officials and police can get their fat pensions. I am also angry. But he controls his anger as I control my anger.

I think when lies are published on this blog site such as the one that DF was drinking in a bar before the incident when DF does not even drink there are always a few dummies who believe them and pass them on to the naive and gullible.

Let the courts rule. They will tell us the truth. I am sure DF will be vindicated as the Napergate Man was. The cases are very similar. Both wanted to expose wasteful government spending and the city would have nothing to do with it. The city does not want to be challenged by anyone. They want business as usual. They want to maintain the status quo. They want 75% pensions after 30 years on the job and want to screw the taxpayers for any losses the pensions sustained in this recent downfall.

DF only wants to stop the screwing of the taxpayer up the wazoo. Everyone should support him. City officials are constantly on this blog site spreading rumors about him in an attempt to tarnish his reputation. Eventually people will see through all this nonsense.

City Pensions etc etc --

Repeat after me:
You cannot touch/punch/shove a cop.
You cannot touch/punch/shove a cop.
You cannot touch/punch/shove a cop.
You ESPECIALLY cannot touch/punch/shove a cop while in the middle of an argument with one.

It really doesnt matter if signs were posted or not. That is not point. The question is not WHY DF was enraged, nor if his rage was justified or not. His reasons for touching the cop are NOT THE POINT.

You cannot touch/shove/punch a cop while in the middle of an argument with one.


And I suspect that if some belligerent, abusive, screamer so much as 'touched' Obama in the middle of a heated argument, he would find himself behind bars so quickly it would make his head spin.

TO: City Pensions

I have not seen it reported that signs were not posted at the time of the towing. The parking restrictions for parade day were widely promoted through the local papers, and the city's website as well.

There was no justification for Furstenau to confront, challenge, and possibly hit a police officer on duty to stop cars from being towed, with or without a sign.

Is it really worth all this?

To Whom it May Concern,

Your rebuttal falls flat because you fail to acknowledge or note that incompetent City Officials did not post signs in a prompt, clear and visible manner.

Most residents don't attend the city council meetings so there is no way they would know if a street was voted to be closed if no signs are posted.

This is what casused the International Incident....not Furstenau or how he voted.

City Officials need to have their heads examined for failing to post signs.

CM Furstenau needs to be commended for attempting to prevent the towing of cars in an illegal manner by a rouge cop. He should be commended for standing up to a cop who lacks COMMON SENSE despite supposedly being degreed.

And touching an officer to make a point is not hitting an officer. You can even touch President Obama without fearing arrest and prosecution. The arrogance exemplified by our police dept. in the Furstenau Case is despicable. It is shameful and disgusting.

To To whom it may concern on March 18, 2009 9:43 AM,

Dick is EXACTLY who and what we need for a mayor.

Our current mayor is a nice guy. Yes, he is. That sums up his entire professional qualifications to be mayor. He brings nothing else to the table. He is totally out of his league from a perspective of education and professional work experience. The mayors biggest failure is his total lack of leadership. During his entire tenure on the city council he has not personally introduced any city legislation... not one single piece! On every single issue that comes before the city council he has consistently refused to take a stand or to demonstrate any true leadership. On every single issue that comes before the city council he lurks in the background and the shadows waiting until a clear majority opinion has been voiced by other council members and then he quickly joins ranks. The mayor obviously is a shallow and indecisive person who is unable to articulate who or what he represents. His voting record shows overwhelmingly that he is afraid to be on the losing side of any vote and seeks the safety of hiding in with the majority voice. This is not leadership and in fact it is a total abdication of leadership.

Fact is he trust people and the police department in specific and the city employees in general have taken advantage of that. The majority of the city council has enabled bad leadership for way too many years. The vast majority of the city council does not dig into the details and as a result we have a city that is more run by the employees than it is by the citizens or the council members that we elected.

We desperately need people like Dick and more of them for that matter. The city has been on a drunken spending spree for years and years. Salaries, benefits, and staffing levels are out of control. No one negotiates this well, much less any time it requires sitting down with one of the unions. No one except Dick is watching the store when it comes to how much money is being spent on hundreds and hundreds of other contracts and purchase orders. He demands better deals. He demands better specifications. He demands more competitive bidding. He demands a better deal for the voter.

Dick does his best to cut waste and corruption. Dick does his best to lower taxes or at least keep them them from not going up. As a single voice though he can only do so much. We need to give him some more help we need to give him some allies. We need to elect more people who think like Dick, act like Dick, and have the same vision for the City of Naperville.

We need some city council members who will stop being bobble headed, rubber stamps for the city employees and what they want and instead start representing the citizens who they were elected to represent. We need a city council who will break up the "we vs them" mentality that permeates every department at city hall. We need city council members who understand why it is fundamentally wrong when city employees refer to us as "our citizens" or "our residents". We need city council members who recognize that this incorrect use of the possessive term is symptomatic of city employees perception that they are actually more important than the residents who foot their salary, benefits, and union dues.

We need some city council members who are not afraid to question and challenge city staff to ensure that every idea, suggestion, and proposal is in the best interest of the residents who elect the city council members. The city council has not been good stewards for the last good number of years in terms of voting in the best interests of the citizens who elected them. They have sold us out to the business community, the developers, and many other special interest groups who do not have a vote to cast. This is tragically wrong-headed and the good citizens are well advised to start electing city council members who promise before the election to put the interests of the voters first and foremost in their deliberations.

Those city council members who have not historically shown strong stewardship of the trust given them by the voters do not deserve to be re-elected to another term. This should be an important point of consideration for every true American who believes in the republic form of government and to only give such power to those who will not mislead us or abuse our trust.

Attn: on 3-7-09@1:06pm aren't any of the bloggers interested or care to comment on this FACT? The city has been proven guilty before and will continue to be hauled into federal court on civil rights violations. Why does not a single citizen care that a NPD officers was able to BEAT the 'system' after being arrested for DUI? Why not a single citizen blogging away? Everytime an HONEST citizen tries to talk about the problem with crooked cops in N-ville- surprise- the city boys come out and attack the HONEST citizen.WE congradulate and thank Shawn Collins for taking on the cities,cop union,school district,etc.You have big problems with crooked cops and corrupt officials. Anyone interested in a grassroots organization to support a DOJ investigation into NPD and top NPD cops?? Just pipe up and we will contact you! D. Dial please RESIGN your part of the problem,not the SOLUTION.ORGANIZE-EDUCATE-PROSPER take back the city!!!

TO: City Pensions are a Fraud on the Naperville Taxpayer on March 18, 2009 4:46 PM

You stated "This international incident was not caused by Furstenau. It was caused by the police dept."

The facts as we know them are that there was a vote in City Council prior to the incident, and Furstenau voted for the restriction of parking in downtown Naperville on parade day, thus requiring the towing of cars in downtown Naperville. When Furstenau saw the cars being towed he confronted the "stupid cop', as you call him, for fulfilling his obligation to enforce the law that Furstenau helped enact. This confrontation led to the alleged hit on the police officer.

As you see, Furstenau caused the incident that resulted in his subsequent extortion attempt upon the city, and millions of taxpayer dollars spend on what I call the INSANE lawsuit against that officer, another officer, the Police Chief, City of Naperville, City Attorney, former City Manager, and FOP leader, and who knows who Fursenau might decide to target next.

I wonder what the court ordered mental exam on Furstenau will find? Perhaps a BB rolling around in a tin can? Makes lots of noise and annoys people but useless in the end.

Everyone in my subdivision loves Dick Furstenau. He stood up for our neighborhood many times. He stands up for the small guy and protects him from police and city abuse. He will leave a great legacy when he retires just like the Napergate Man.

He just needs to win his court case like the Napergate Man to get everyone off his back once and for all. That is all it will take to bring the truth out and restore DF's credibility and reputation. Let us stop believing all the propaganda and rumors published on this blog site.

The multi personality blogger is back - oh joy!

Tricky Dick is a criminal. He is playing the blackmail game with our future. This criminal should pack is bags and move. Nobody i speak to want this guy around. I live in the maplebrook subdivision and nobody likes this criminal in my neighborhood.

To Whom it May Concern,

This international incident was not caused by Furstenau. It was caused by the police dept. Furstenau either touched or did not touch a police officer to try to emphasize a point that no cars should be towed since no sign was posted as City of Naperville Ordinances require.

Charging him for watching out for the citizens is unconsionable. Charging him for trying to hold a dumb police officer accountable for his stupidity is unconsionable. Any college educated police officer with a mill issued diploma from Antiqua University would know it is inappropriate to tow any car without notice being posted promptly, clearly and visibly.

And the city pension should be dismantled and the proceeds divided amongst the city employees in a pro rata manner. Once that happens they should be added to the Social Security System like the rest of the residents of this fine city.

Keeping these pensions that are down 50-60% open, is financial extortion of the badly beaten Naperville Taxpayer. It defies logic that government officials can expect taxpayers who lost half their 401ks to replinish their pensions so they can collect 75% of their highest salary after 30 years on the work force.

Just as the taxpayers and residents suffer the consequences of market disasters, city officials, police, and fire officers need to learn to suffer the consequences of market downturns. If the downnturns result in 50% pensions instead of 75% pensions upon retirement, that must be a price they must pay. They just can not come and suck the residents dry in order to reinflate their own pensions. The residents also want a comformtable retirement. They need to find way to replinish their own 401ks and not city pension funds that lost half their value becuase of the risky investments that were undertaken.

City employees must be required to take responsibility of any risk they undertake with their investements....no different than other non-governmental residents. Taxpayers can not be expected to subsidize governmental officials for their incompetence.....no different than subsidizing those AIG executive with their million dollar bogus retention bonuses. The OUTRAGE should be equal.

TO: Furstenau for Mayor in 2011 on March 17, 2009 7:45 PM

As you describe it, and as we know it, Furstenau is obviously the last person we need for mayor. In this day and age when people are losing their jobs, and/or seeing their 401K/pensions depleted, why would we want a vindictive, hot-headed mayor going around firing people he doesn't like by claiming to save tax dollars, then watch him destroy hard earned pensions, and eliminate needed positions like Police Chief to settle a score. Hasn't he tried to ruin enough lives already?

"People are fed up with high taxation and Furstenau may be the only one left truly representing the people instead of the pensions and full health benefits politicians receive upon being elected."

...and Furstenau is represented by a lawyer who is trying to get more of my tax dollars out of my pocket for an incident that Furstenau set in motion with an intentional hit upon a Police Officer.

Fantasy land is wonderful, isn't it?

I love Mayor Pradel....but I think Furstenau would make a great Mayor when Pradel finally retires. He will bring our taxes down so they are affordable again.

He may even fire the entire legal dept. and just outsource any legal issue that comes up. Why not?

He will bust all the unions and destroy all the pensions.

And he may double as Mayor and Police Chief and save us the Chief's salary. There is no way he is keeping Dial since he named Dial as a defendent in his lawsuit.

He may install the Napergate Man as the new city manager and ask him to try and stop rampant corruption and/or improprieties that have engulfed city hall in this 21st century.

Sometimes what comes around goes around.

People are fed up with high taxation and Furstenau may be the only one left truly representing the people instead of the pensions and full health benefits politicians receive upon being elected.

BTW, what does that man outside the parking garage living in a plastic tent pay in real estate taxes per year? He wants to run against DF in 2011 but yet I suspect he does not pay a penny in taxes for using our sidewalk. He has his own generator and state of the art computer and is writing a book. And he is screwing every taxpayer by not paying his share of real estate taxes. How is that fair? Why don't our public assessor assess the square footage he is occupying on prime real estate and get some dough out of this wanna be future Mayor? Why do we have to wait for Furstenau to squeeze him for his pro rata share of taxes. Enough is enough with his free ride......all free rides have to end some time.

By Thomas on March 16, 2009 9:12 PM,

"Are you perhaps someone who posts quite frequently? Even, aghast, as other personalities?"

Accuse and speculate all you want, that doesn't change any of the facts. I post when I feel moved to reply to a post that is either really stupid, factually wrong, or as in your case just plain boneheaded.

I do post as Anonymous. Always have and always will. There are more than one Anonymous. You will have to figure out which one I am and which ones I am not if it is important to you. Personally I could care less. Fact is I have never posted as anything other than Anonymous and never will. The Naperville Sun can verify that I have never used any other personalities. If others choose to do so for whatever reason that is their prerogative, I'm not sure how that makes any real difference anyway because we all have the ability to be or not be anybody we want. Yet another fine example of one of your boneheaded arguments.

What will be interesting is when the defense attorneys seek to recapture their fees from the plaintiff:

United States Code > TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1988
Prev | Next
§ 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

(b) Attorney’s fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92–318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the PREVAILING PARTY, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.

"Prevailing Party" includes the City and it's employees like the former City Manager.

Anonymous on March 16, 2009 4:22 PM

You stated that the city "should fight these kinds of cases vigilantly" yet if they (we) were prepared to fight each and every case brought against the city do you have any clue how much we would be paying in taxes every year?


Ok Anonymous, Since you chose not to offer any proof whatsoever to your many claims - "do you have any idea how many complaints" etc. etc. I guess your solution is as you have written above. The city should just settle every suit brought through a settlement and negotiation process, as if every suit had merit? Yeah, great idea.

by the way Anonymous, your writing style and veracity seem awfully familiar to others I have read recently and in the past. Are you perhaps someone who posts quite frequently? Even, aghast, as other personalities?

The only extortion I see is that of the legal hands hired by the city extorting the resident taxpayers for over a million dollars on a "he said she said" case not worthy of a penny.

Dick did not hire the extorsionists....the City of Naperville hired the extorsionists who are milking the innocent taxpayers.

You guys are all wasting your time.

Wait for the judge and jury to rule.

You wasted your time on the Napergate Man in the same way.

No one thought the city could lose that case either.

But the city lost big time and not only once.....and then lost appeal after appeal.

This should be a hint that the city is not always credible.

Let us halt these unnecessary attacks on Furstenau and let the judge and jury rule.

The fact that the cases against the police officer, investigator and Chief were not dismissed speaks volumes. DF will get his day in court. We need to be patient instead of condemning him for exercising his constitutional rights.

Why don't you guys all take a break and enjoy the March Madness Big Dance? Have some fun....take a chill pill. Leave DF alone. All he does is fight for those who elected him and even those who did not elect him.

Does anyone know who is running for city elections? I have not seen any coverage in the Sun. Did I somehow miss it all?

For as long as I have lived here, the City has had outside counsel for a variety of issues(going back to Glink). Please do not try to represent the Furstenau case as "picked out for special handling" as though the City has not done this in the past, the implication being that it is a part of a conspiracy against him.

The city legal department employees handle injury claims, contract approvals, labor negotiations, HR issues, ordinance review and other protocol matters, etc. etc. Just because they are not primary on the Furstenau case does not mean they are not up to the task or that the City is gunning for Dick. There simply is not enough time for them to dedicate the hours required. Why would the City employee more legal staff than generally necessary, just IN CASE they had some major trial issue??? I think NOT. You don't pay a plumber to flush your toilet so he will be there when your sewer backs up.

To Anonymous- Aggressive representative of the people? Don't make me laugh! As I have said before, he may have a right to sue me, but I hardly want him representing me at the same time!!!

Anon @ 4:22PM,
So are you telling me that Councilman Furstenau is using his inside information from these closed sessions for his personal gain? You are arguing that he has gathered information as a councilman and is now using it to win a CASH gain from the very taxpayers he is supposed to be protecting? That really TICK's me off! I'm sure his retirement plan has tanked like most of ours and now he see's the VERY people that elected him as his saving grace! CITY PLEASE FIGHT THIS SUIT!! DICK IS TRUELY A SLIMEBALL FOR DOING THIS!! RETIRE ON YOUR OWN DIME AND NOT MINE!

To Thomas on March 16, 2009 3:00 PM,

Since you like to play semantics games maybe you would like to explain the difference between an "aggressive" representative of the people and a "bully"?

The judge has discretion to immediately toss out "frivolous" lawsuits. Again, are we to believe that your armchair opinion is more correct than a sitting judge?

Do you have any idea how many complaints and lawsuits are filed against the City of Naperville each and every year? Add in to that mix Naperville Township and Naperville Park District and both school districts... do you have even a clue? And if you don't march right down to city hall and ask how many people are employed just on the city attorney's staff. Do you think we are employing all of these lawyers and their support staff just because we are nice guys? You stated that the city "should fight these kinds of cases vigilantly" yet if they (we) were prepared to fight each and every case brought against the city do you have any clue how much we would be paying in taxes every year?

Truth is most of the cases brought against the city are negotiated (blackmail in your vernacular) until a reasonable settlement is reached. Fact is this case was picked out for special treatment and handling. Fact is Dick as a sitting city council member knows all of the facts of these other cases and how they were handled behind closed doors during many, many executive sessions he has attended over the years. You have absolutely no idea and Dick has the upper hand and a lot of leverage with the factual history of how many other cases have been handled. Knowledge is power and you don't have a clue to what is going on much less what has been going on and you really think anyone is going to believe anything you say other than for some reason you just don't like Dick?

To: Anonymous on March 16, 2009 1:51 PM

There are other ways this message may have already been conveyed to the appropriate people within the City besides public comment.

You're more than welcome to attempt to stifle my First Amendment Right to express my opinion.

Joe and Anonymous,

Joe, your argument and logic is valid and I agree with you(Original Joe on March 16, 2009 1:04 PM).

Anonymous jumped on my original comment and turned it into a legal - literal definition of blackmail. If you re-read my post (listed below) you will see that I included the comment "not literally" when describing the held hostage or blackmailed terms. Furstenau is a bully, and I can't wait for him to be gone. The hostage and blackmail were metaphorically used which I think most people (except anonymous) picked up on. Furstenau at least implied that he would sue unless the city paid him 130K. I am glad the city is fighting this and I think ultimately it will all be thrown out. while the city is paying now, perhaps this vigilance will discourage others from filing frivolous suits in the future because they know Naperville is not an easy mark?

Thomas on March 13, 2009 11:58 AM
Many others have indicated that the city should not be held hostage, or blackmailed (not literally!) by any one individual and they should fight these kind of cases vigilantly.

Anonymous, any kind of action outside of complaining anonymously on the internet is way too much to ask of most Potluck contributors.

To Original Joe on March 16, 2009 1:04 PM,

Well if your half-cocked legal theory makes so much sense to you then why don't you march right down to the next city council meeting tomorrow evening and during the public forum part of the meeting march right up to the microphone and ask all of the city council members, the mayor, the chief of police, and the city attorney how in the heck they were all so stupid as to miss this one and officially state your demand that Dick get arrested right there on the spot and thrown in jail?

If you are so convinced that this is blackmail you should put some real action where your mouth is or shut the heck up.

To: Anonymous on March 16, 2009 9:49 AM

Filing a lawsuit is not illegal. Showing pictures of a husband with his Mistress to his spouse is also not illegal. What is illegal is DEMANDING MONEY by use of the threat of doing the LEGAL ACT.

Let's see if you can figure it out:

"Pay me $2,000 or I will tell your wife you are having an affair and show her the pictures."

Notice the actions that someone says they will follow through on are not illegal. What is illegal is threatening to do them if money is not paid.

"Pay me $130,000 or I will sue you and claim you violated my civil rights."

Suing someone is not illegal, but demanding money while using the legal act as a threat fits the definition of Blackmail.

I'm sure Dick would get a few votes if he runs again, but it will not be enough to get re-elected. He his a fraud, sham, megalomaniac, and bully. You know, an Illinois politician! His political career is over. He hasn't shaken up the "system" as downtown oldtimer claims. When he gets the rest of his case thrown out he will only prove that our city runs just fine and there are no major issues. No city is perfect, but Naperville comes pretty close!

Whatever Dick runs for, I'll vote for him. He has shaken up the system enough to get the "haves" afraid of him. He is the only councilman who has made an effort to want to meet the public. He supports the little guy. The builders in this town have walked all over the old time residents and he is the only one who has stood in their way. I hope he wins the suit against the city. It is time Naperville took responsibility for their actions. If you think I am one voice in the crowd, you are sadly mistaken.

To Original Joe on March 15, 2009 11:27 PM,

Blackmail is an illegal act. Filing a lawsuit is not an illegal act. Your argument is pointless and you only use words like blackmail to inflame people and in an attempt to make it look like Dick or his lawyers have done something wrong or illegal and they haven't

If your argument was valid then every lawsuit would be blackmail and that would serve to undermine the entire legal system. Seems to me you don't want Dick to be able to exercise his constitutional rights the same as any other citizen for a whole bunch of reasons:
1. he is an elected official,
2. you believe he is guilty even though he was found not guilty,
3. you believe the city's version of what has transpired, and
4. he has asked for a settlement.

Resident said "He is arrogant and self-centered. He thinks he is above the law." I'm not so sure who "he" is at this point. If the truth comes out in the trial we should all be able to know with no uncertain doubts who "he" really is.

To Resident on March 15, 2009 11:58 PM

"This guy has hurt every citizen in the city of naperville. He is arrogant and self-centered. He thinks he is above the law. He is gone..."

You do realize the exact same argument could me made for several members of the city council, the mayor, the chief of police, the former city manage, the city attorney, and several police officers don't you?

Anonymous on March 15, 2009 8:18 PM

Let me see if I understand this correctly... what you and all of your fellow armchair lawyers are alleging .....


Anonymous, you've played a lot of parts in the past on these blogs, are you now playing an attorney yourself?

This guy has hurt every citizen in the city of naperville. He is arrogant and self-centered. He thinks he is above the law. He is gone...

To Anonymous on March 15, 2009 6:10 PM

With regards to blackmail, It is only by demanding money not to do the act, that the crime is committed.
The act itself can be a perfectly legal act (filing a lawsuit, telling one's spouse they are cheating, etc). The demand was for money to not do it, was it not?

I hope DF is ordered to pay the city it's costs when his suit is tossed. You still never answered the question posed earlier:

Did DF accidentally make contact with the officer or was it on purpose ?

To To whom it may concern on March 15, 2009 7:12 PM

Let me see if I understand this correctly... what you and all of your fellow armchair lawyers are alleging is that Davis over at Edwards Hospital, a private corporation, knew what to do when an extortion attempt was being made.

On the other hand no one at city hall... not the mayor, not the chief of police, not the city attorney, not the city manager... no, not one single person... recognized what Dick and his lawyer were doing was tantamount to illegal extortion and none of them had enough intelligence to file criminal charges. Nope, no one but you and your amateur sleuthing. Wow, should we be impressed?


The example shown at the website above is a good one. What Furstenau and his lawyers did was attempted to extort money from the city, believing that the city would pay them off to avoid the cost of legal proceedings to defend itself, and potential harm to reputation. They were sorely wrong, so the attempted extortion was foiled. The filing of the original lawsuit was not the extortion, but the attempt to force the city to pay by threatening the suit would have been extortion if the city had paid him. He proceeded to attempt to extort a settlement by expanding his lawsuit to include other city officials, FOP, and former city officials who had nothing to do with the situation. One of the hired attorneys for the city is pretty sharp. He called it "attempted extortion" as quoted in the Naperville Sun.

To Original Joe on March 15, 2009 1:37 PM,

Blackmail is also an illegal act. Filing a lawsuit is not an illegal act. Just out of curiosity, what in this case that has been done to date is it that you actually even comes close to being blackmail?

To Anonymous on March 15, 2009 10:05 AM

Then apparently Thomas was the one who was right in the first place when he called it blackmail, since the threat is to do something that IS LEGAL if one does not do the other thing (like hand over $130K and an apology). I stand corrected.

By Original Joe on March 15, 2009 12:29 AM,

Extortion is an illegal act. If an illegal act of extortion had taken place as you alledge, do you really think this would have escaped the watchful legal eye of the Naperville legal department or the Naperville Police Department? Or if it has, as you allege, then are we to conclude that the legal and police departments are really as incompetent as many allege?

You aren't cracking any new eggs open by stating that people don't file law suits without seeking or hoping for a remedy. There would be no purpose of lawsuits if this wasn't the expected outcome. If earlier negotiations are not successful, as was what happened in this case, it is pretty common to expect a lawsuit to be filed. Short of taking matters into his own hands, which would be illegal; if negotiations are not successful there simply is no other proper recourse in a civilized society.

The city has "rights". Dick has "rights". The city has taken a "position". Dick has taken a "position". At this time either side could win, either side could lose, or a decision could be found anywhere in the middle, along with a few other outcomes. Civilized people understand that the proper way to reach a conclusion is to use and trust the legal system.

Dick feel he has been wronged. He is entitled to his opinion and to see if a court of law agrees. There are a lot of people who support the city. In fact there are a lot of people who support both sides and for pretty different reasons.

If the city successfully defends itself the parties involved will be vindicated and Dick will lose face. We can then all protest how much it cost to defend the lawsuit, but then again the city did not use reasonable and prudent judgement with how many lawyers it threw at this case nor how much these lawyers charge per hour. If they feel entitled to defend a $100K lawsuit at all cost then those who think this is a waste of money need to hold the city accountable for the decisions they made on how come they spent so much money.

If Dick successfully defends itself then a whole new can of worms gets opened as to official misconduct, conspiracy, and some other illegal dealing which will very likely result in criminal prosecutions of any given number of city employees. There is a lot more at stake here than $100K. There is a lot more at stake there than the $1MM the city has spent so far on the defense.

The city and those who support the city's position would like us to believe that it is all about money, but the truth be known money is really only a sidebar distraction to the main issue. The city really doesn't want to discuss that fact and has been waging a public opinion campaign to build support for it's side of the story. Maybe they are naive enough to hope that such measures will influence potential jurors?

Years after this lawsuit gets settled, long after the jury reaches it's decision, long after we all forget how much money was spent what we all will remember is the legal truth and determination as to who did what to who. In the end some will be vindicated and some will be ruined, some reputations will be enhanced and some will be destroyed, and the public opinion of those who guessed wrong will change, at least for some.

The truth in this case may cost a lot to get it out in the open, but in the name of freedom, liberty, and justice it is worth every penny it is going to cost.

Joe I'm willing to bet you've never spoken to Furstenau or heard his side of the story at all.

Seems pretty obvious from what you're posting. :)


"in an August letter sent to the city in an attempt to rectify the situation, Furstenau asked for an apology and compensation for his personal expenses and campaign donor contributions to the tune of almost $130,000."

DF and Collins' hope is for money and lots of it. People don't file suits without seeking or hoping for a remedy.

If you're telling me that the remedy asked for in the lawsuit is the $130,000 and an apology and nothing more, I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, they are hoping for MORE, not LESS.

That is extortion: "the practice of obtaining something (usually money) through force or threats.

The threat here was the lawsuit, and he filed one when he did not get the money he asked for the first time.

What is the definition of extortion you are using?

By Original Joe on March 14, 2009 7:48 PM

"The term is Extortion." You might want to double check the definition of the word you are using. With your interpretation every legally filed lawsuit would be classified as extortion.

"Pay me $130,000 and give me an apology, or I'll sue you for millions." Really? You might want to double check your facts on this one too. Last time I checked the lawsuit wasn't asking for millions. It is asking the court to provide for damages.

The only millions that I am aware of in this lawsuit are the millions being spent by the city to defend itself. Seems to me if the city had such a slam dunk case they would need to spend even less than the plaintiff's attorney. So why then is the city outspending the plaintiff attorney by a factor of at least 40 to 1?

Sorry to read that you misunderstand what this is all about.

It was not Blackmail or Hostage. The term is Extortion. "Pay me X(smaller number) or I'll sue you for Y(larger number)"

Let's fill in the variables, shall we?

"Pay me $130,000 and give me an apology, or I'll sue you for millions."

There, I hope that clears up the misunderstanding about what it really is.

To Anonymous at 3:53PM

So let's take the inflammatory language out of the equation. Someone files suit against another party. The other party does not believe they were in the wrong and refuse to pay money and offer an apology. Basically both parties are standing on principles. The emotion in this case boils down to the fact that a City Official is suing other City Officials at our expense. Just the fact that the City refused to even negotiate with Furstenau is an indication of how baseless they believe his suit to be.

Perhaps if this happened to you personally, you would capitulate and cut your losses. However, as a private party, your chances of being sued again are a lot slimmer.

I can't wait for this case to be over. And for the record, my money is on the City. Of course, Dick and the Giant Ego will probably appeal and you will go on believing he is just executing his civil rights and that it is only the City spending your money. Sorry to see you get sucked into that kind of trap so easily.

To Thomas,

"Many others have indicated that the city should not be held hostage, or blackmailed (not literally!) by any one individual and they should fight these kind of cases vigilantly. Their implication is that the city should fight because it is the right thing to do, and to prove that the stand they are taking is in fact correct - which in my book means they are fighting on principle. Something I agree with."

So we start with inflammatory allegations like 'being held hostage or blackmail" that are intended to rile people up even though they are inaccurate and incorrect as either conversational or legal descriptions of what has been happened. So after these posters attempt to twist the truth to an advantage in terms of their position on the issue we are supposed to logically follow that the city is therefore fighting on principles?

I don't think so. Sorry to see you get sucked into this kind of a trap so easily.


every substantial ruling? are you kidding me? there have been many that have gone against the city, and the biggest one to go against them so far is the fact this judge, who wants so desperately to throw the whole case out, hasn't thrown out the original case against the cops and the city. i would say that is a pretty substantial ruling in furstenau's favor. you know the judge would do it in a second if there was any way possible whatsoever.

looking more and more to me like the cops screwed up after all.

Dear Dan,

Wishful thinking. The fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Do the math

Dick F sued the City and individuals despite having no case + Dick F has lost at every substantive ruling = Dick F is to blame for costing the City $$

Anonymous on March 13, 2009 9:27 AM
Mostly those who are offended or outraged voice their displeasure over the cost. Very few people have taken up sides over the principles that are supposed to be the basis of the disagreement which is an interesting observation in and of itself.


Anonymous, I respectfully disagree. There is one individual (for example: A Second Slap to the Face on March 7, 2009 1:49 PM) constantly writing about how the city should have just settled for the first offer and amount. I also suspect this person is a number of other monikers as well (perhaps even you anonymous?). Many others have indicated that the city should not be held hostage, or blackmailed (not literally!) by any one individual and they should fight these kind of cases vigilantly. Their implication is that the city should fight because it is the right thing to do, and to prove that the stand they are taking is in fact correct - which in my book means they are fighting on principle. Something I agree with.

To Resident,

Dick actually cares about you and he has worked harder than the rest of the council to demonstrate his commitment to the community that elected him.

Nothing about this tragic serious of events is a joke. In hindsight there is a lot that I am sure both the officer and Dick could have or would have done differently. I am sure there are lessons learned for the police department, the city council, the city of naperville, and even the good citizens of naperville.

At this point in time the only thing that I am pretty sure of is that both sides have dug their heels in and neither side is now willing to budge. That is why we have professional negotiators, that is why we have arbitrators, that is why we have a legal system. These two parties are not going to find a way to settle this amicably on their own at this point so all we can do is sit back, wait, and watch how it plays out.

Mostly those who are offended or outraged voice their displeasure over the cost. Very few people have taken up sides over the principles that are supposed to be the basis of the disagreement which is an interesting observation in and of itself.

Once the final outcome of this is determined we will all have plenty of opportunity to state our opinion on whatever ruling is reached. Until then it is fun to read the opinions on each side, but I think we all realize that no matter how well or how long we advocate our own opinions nothing is going to change and it isn't going to change the outcome. The final outcome isn't going to be determined by any of us, it isn't going to be determined by Dick or the city council, it is going to be determined by the rule of law.

This guy only cares about himself. He is a joke.

taxpayer on March 11, 2009 7:52 PM

i guess telling people that they do their job better or lose it is a censurable offense but adultery in the work place isn't.


Taxpayer, you are correct, that's the first thing you said that I agree with - just look at Bill Clinton. He had every democrat sticking up for his actions, and people still love him even after his admitted adultery.

Sounds like "someone" needs to start running ads again in the Naperville Sun, eh "Taxpayer"? Gosh, I wonder who that could be??

joe the plumber

df's case was postponed like 6 times (just a guess but probably pretty close). df only asked for 1 of those 6 and it was the last one.

the final time is was postponed by the city, the judge and city selected a court date that was about 1 week before the election. furstenau felt he would rather be campaigning instead of sitting in a court room for the last week or so. he then asked the judge to move it back a couple weeks until after the election was over so he could campaign.

so don't blame df for the fact it took an entire year and a half to get to court. he only extended it about 3 weeks and that was only after the city postponed it 5 times, over 18 months and settle on a court day 1 week before his election. the damage had already been done by that point. there would have been no way to overturn 18 months of negative press in less then a week. the city got exactly what it wanted.

to all you hypocrites and furstenau haters:

1) case isn't over. even the case against the city as defendants may not be over. if the case against the city was so hideously ridiculous, as you say it is, it would have been thrown out 18 months ago and not just last week. that tells you there is, at least, SOME validity there and it may not be over. even if the city remains out, the fact that the judge allowed it to stay in for so long tells you that it wasn't as frivolous as you want to say it was.

2) even this, obviously, cop friendly judge who has done everything he possibly can to try to screw furstenau's, hasn't thrown out the lawsuit against the 3 cops named in it. guess there really may be something serious to look at there. guess the cops may have royally screwed up after all.

3) the fact the judge ordered a mental exam for a person not claiming mental or psychological damage is ridiculous. Emotional distress is a normal claim in this type of lawsuit, and you can't prove there was no emotional distress by proving there was no psychological damage. that's comparing apples and oranges. in my opinion, this is one big can of worms the judge just opened for appeal.

4) funny how all of you irate people who say you care about the well being of the community are saying the city should turn around and stand up for itself and spend even more money by filing a lawsuit against furstenau for filing a frivolous lawsuit. well, isn't that what furstenau is doing from his point of view. he says he was arrested over things that never happened, had several eye witnesses back him up, and has tried to stand up for himself. remember, the cops tried to make these non-existing events into a 10 year minimum prison term and not just a slap on the wrist.

i think its funny that you say it's ok for the city to spend money to defend itself and file a lawsuit, yet it isn't ok for furstenau to do the same thing.


by the way, only about 20% of the people who spoke on his behalf were from his church. the rest were a few neighbors and many were people he met while helping as a councilman.

DON'T FORGET - the judge is doing everything he can to tear the case down to bare minimum, that is obvious, but even he hasn't been able to throw out the case against the cops and what they did. he knows the evidence and he knows the case can't be thrown out, and he probably knows the cops are screwed. that should tell you as much as you need to know about what happened when furstenau was arrested.

What if DF`s initial trial wasn`t postponed until after the election? It is my belief, keeping this incident in the media until election time was a mistake. Had he been found not guilty prior to election it may not have been an issue. Wouldn`t you want to get any court date over with if you sincerely thought you were innocent? Especially when you are running for an elected position... why keep your question of being guilty or not until election time. Perhaps DF should have insisted on a speedy trial and not delaying it. If it was postponed on his behalf... poor choice. Civil rights violations are serious without question, but too you have to take blame if you make a poor decision in choosing a court date and keeping the voting public in the dark concerning ones innocense or guilt. Then after the vote you loose, start pointing fingersand blaming others for not being the chosen one.

Anonymous 10:23

David vs Goliath ? are you serious? Aren't you being just a BIT grandiose? I think this more a case of the neighborhood bully breaking someone's window and getting caught by the mom who lives in the house. But in this case, the bully has access to a lawyer, and it becomes a case of he said/she said, and costs everyone a lot of money.

So instead of appologizing for being out of line, taking his licks and suffering the consequences, the bully and his parents turn it around and somehow make the poor woman out to be the wrong-doer.

dont be so ridiculous as to propose that there is some grand issue at stake here. It is nothing more than a noisy windbag, having pushed it too hard, being required to suffer the consequences of his actions. He doesn't like it. His ego has been bruised. So he needs to make it somebody elses fault.

And THAT is your grand beacon of personal integrity and accountability?

To: Anonymous on March 11, 2009 10:23 AM

Let us tackle the motive aspect, as you suggest. I'll even make it very simple.

Did DF Accidently touch the Officer, or was it a deliberate action?

Anonymous wrote:

Then the first trial started. Here the prosecution had the upper hand because in a criminal trial the testimony of a police officer carries more weight than a defendant, yet the city still could not prove it's case.

Maybe things are different in Illinois, but when I've served on juries at criminal trials, the judge always instructed us that we should not necessarily regard a police officer's testimony as being more credible than that of other witnesses.


There is no way the city can come out ahead on this one no matter what it does at this point. Yes, really. No matter what the city does it somehow ends up losing. Well the old saying is "you made your bed, now lie in it" rings true for what they have done.

There is certainly no way the city can come out ahead financially, but that is not the only thing that is at stake here.

By Fred on March 10, 2009 9:38 PM,

Did you read the part where Dick is going to appeal the judge's ruling? How many times have judge's made mistakes and their rulings have been overturned on appeal?

Of course the defense is happy, but even they know the final chapter hasn't been written on this one. One thing I do know is that if Dick chooses to appeal, and why shouldn't he?, it is going to take the legal fees for the city up another notch.

Don't forget for one minute that Audrey Brodrick is hoping and praying that Dick appeals. If he does her meal ticket will keep getting punched for the next year or so. If he decides against appealing it is time for her to pull up stakes as the billable hours party for her is now over. "So this is a big one for us." is nothing more than a boldface lie, but the politically correct statement the mayor and city council desperately want to hear. It's also called "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

By Original Joe on March 10, 2009 4:26 PM,

"Let's simply this. I learned at a very early age NEVER TOUCH A POLICE OFFICER." Good, hope you follow what you were taught. As for Dick, he said he didn't touch the police officer. The police officer said he did. There were no other witnesses. Two sides of one story, each disagreeing with the other. What the judge basically ruled was that not all contact with a police officer is necessarily illegal. Let's remember the law was written to protect officers from being attacked and to have a legal basis of arrest if they are attacked.

What that means is the prosecution has to look at motive and intent... was Dick deliberately trying to harm the officer? Was the officer injured?, etc. There have been many lies told about Dick slapping a copy, hitting a cop, punching a cop, etc. The best that is knows at this point is that he "might" have brushed the back of his hand on the cop's chest. Big deal.

If a street cop is such a bad judge of character and behavior that he can not tell the difference between someone who is animated and maybe "talks with their hands" and someone who is a clear and present danger to their personal safety and well being... well that person really doesn't deserve to be walking around in possession of a badge and gun.

Bottom line this started off as a "he said, he said" case. Nothing more, nothing less. Then the politics started with the chief of police, city manager, and mayor getting involved. Then the first trial started. Here the prosecution had the upper hand because in a criminal trial the testimony of a police officer carries more weight than a defendant, yet the city still could not prove it's case.

Now we are off to the civil trial where the police officer's testimony will not carry any extra weight and where a jury is going to get a tale of David vs Goliath, a tale of an elected official up against a conspiracy of political rivals. Shawn Collins could care less what Brodrick has to say. Everything he has to say he can save for the jury.

There is no way the city can come out ahead on this one no matter what it does at this point. Yes, really. No matter what the city does it somehow ends up losing. Well the old saying is "you made your bed, now lie in it" rings true for what they have done.

It isn't looking too good for Dick, Yet another part of his suit got tossed today.

From the March 10 Sun;

Court dismisses defendants from Furstenau case

Half his case is gone.

A federal judge has dismissed the retaliation portion of Naperville City Councilman Richard Furstenau’s civil rights lawsuit against the city.

Now, the only alleged violations left to litigate stem from his January 2006 arrest for shoving a police officer.

“Essentially, what the court is doing is systematically dismantling the lawsuit in favor of the defendants and the city of Naperville,” said Freeborn and Peters attorney Audrey Brodrick, who represents the city against Furstenau’s claims. “So this is a big one for us.”

Full story here;


Anonymous 3:02

If we are talking about literary quotes, lets try Shakespeare:

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Never was there a better description of DF's efforts here........

To: Anonymous on March 10, 2009 3:02 PM

Let's simply this. I learned at a very early age NEVER TOUCH A POLICE OFFICER.

If DF had learned that too, we would not be where we are. It's not a balance of power issue. He initiated contact and it is a fact from the trial. That right there is what will be the decision point for this case on whether there was 'just cause' for his arrest and charge. The fact of contact was not fabricated. It happened. It did not happen to the level of the charge he was tried for, as evidenced by the Not Guilty verdict, but it happened. That's all there needs to be. There is no 'false arrest' because he initiated contact upon the officer and that fact is an undisputed fact.

I'm surprised Sean took this case, but I won't be surprised at the outcome.

By Original Joe on March 10, 2009 2:14 PM

It it wasn't so tragic it would be amusing how you and other only care about the cost of the lawsuit and care nothing about the civil liberties and abuse of power. Your attitude is if it is going to cost money go ahead and let it happen.

I'm glad you live in Mayberry and I truly hope you never experience a serious wrong in your life so that you don't have to experience first hand how really screwed up the balance of power has gotten. Of course as long as you continue to live your idyllic life you will never be able to comprehend the wrongs others go thru. Sometimes. you just have to have it happen to you to truly be able to appreciate something and have understanding and compassion for others.

That puts you between a rock and a hard place with your current thinking and attitude. Hemingway once described Oak Park as a place with broad lawns and narrow minds. I wonder what he would say about Naperville?

TO: Anonymous on March 10, 2009 7:26 AM

It's not buying a seat. If a council person sues the city or engages them on some sort of 'deal', they should remove themselves from their position as part of that 'deal'.

It takes two to make a deal. One to offer, one to accept.

I'm glad DF didn't get a dime and the city chose to take a stand. I have a feeling Sean Collins will earn the same amount of money he earned from his lawsuit against District 204 last year (the one that was summarily dismissed).

I just hope this makes it through the courts sooner rather than later. I'm getting too anxious to see that stunned look that will be on his face.

The only people that continue to support Dick "I know better than all" Furstenau are the same nut-jobs that can't let go of napergate, continue to think that there is an "establishment" or just can't stand "the Man." People with logic and common sense see Furstenau as nothing more than a fool who's 15 minutes are now over. Move along Dick, your time here has come and gone. Thanks for wasting our time and money for your personal gain. Take your lawyers with you too.

I see the out-house attorneys for the city are suddenly concerned about the taxpayer. If they are, why are they charging us 400-500 dollar per hour and possibly padding their hours. Why are they charging us 400-500 dollars while they drive to and from the courthouse? Why are they charging us 400-500 per hour while they visit Margo during rush hour?

Dick did not hire the city attorneys. The city hired them and must be responsible for controlling their insane legal fees in such dire economic times.

DF was smart and got a an attorney to take his case for a CONTINGENCY. I am sure he could have found a high powered attorney who would charge him 400-500 dollars an hour and maybe do a little better job on a "he said she said" case. He was wise and chose not to waste his money on a non-life threatening case. No ones liberty is at stake in this case so there should be no need for high powered attorneys who want the kitchen sink out of city hall.

If they city wasn't brain dead, they would have handled it in-house with no additional expense to taxpayers. Why have an in-house legal dept. if they can't handle a "touching" case? This whole thing is ridiculous and the city most take responsibility for this soon to be 5 million waste of taxpayer money. A million has already been spent and the trial has not even started. The first appeal has yet to be filed.

Let us not keep blaming DF for something he had no control over. If the city wants to spend 5 million defending a frivilous or non-frivilous lawsuit, they need to take responsibility for this waste of money.

If the in-house attorneys are not going to step up to the plate and handle these easy cases, let us lay-off the entire legal dept. and just farm all our legal problems to oustide firms.....but ones that charge cities 100 dollars an hour on a contractual basis...they are plentiful these days with so many law firms having to lay off their lawyers due to loss of business in these tough economic times.


Your argument would carry more weight if it weren't for your obvious bias toward Dick Furstenau. You are right that corporations do often pay what amounts to a token sum to make lawsuits go away, but the amount for which they settle is usually substantially less than the amount originally requested by the plaintiff ($100K, in this case). Also, and more to the point, private corporations never admit fault in these suits. Mr. Furstenau is also asking the City for an apology, which is tantamount to admitting fault. So, in fact, the city is being asked to do something that private corporations never do.

Back to your original point. You seem to think that the fact that plaintiffs have a slight statistical advantage in lawsuits is reason enough for the city to settle. By your logic, Dick Furstenau should have pled guilty in the criminal trial because the overwhelming majority of criminal trials are won by the prosecution.


By Original Joe on March 10, 2009 12:25 AM

That is not a concession. That is not negotiation. At best it could be considered coercion at worst extortion or even a bribe.

The city of naperville has no legal authority to exchange money for a resignation. Do you realize how TERRIBLY bad that looks? How very arrogant that any of them would even think making such an offer was appropriate?

Some members of the establishment don't like Dick because he calls for restraint, because he calls for accountability, because he wants those in city government to accept responsibility for their actions and in some cases inaction.

For those who oppose him politically to offer to exchange money for his elected seat so that they can then turn around and hand pick one of their cronies to fill the remainder of the term speaks more about their personal corruption, more about their lack of ethics, than it ever will about Dick.

The city is NOT going to spend 5 million on this suit. It will all be over soon and it will run about 1 million. Money well spent as far as I see it. Furstenau is a bully and needs to be thrown out! I'm glad the true leaders we have are doing the right thing in outing this fraud known as Dick Furstenau!

To: "Anonymous on March 9, 2009 11:20 PM"

It's called a concession where both parties give up something... The city and money for Dick and his seat. Both parties claim victory in that scenario. Apparently that wasn't "good enough" for Dick.

Instead, Dick got greedy and basically said give us X or we'll sue for Y.

I'll take my chances and fight that kind of crap any day.

By Original Joe on March 9, 2009 8:53 PM

You are exactly correct about it being a crybaby attempt at extortion back when the city offered to settle if Dick would resign. That move really exposed all of them for the crude bit players they really are.

By John Q. Public on March 9, 2009 8:47 PM

This has EVERYTHING to do with this case. When a private corporation gets named in a lawsuit they very carefully and methodically evaluate all of their options. Decisions to fight or settle are based upon carefully evaluated odd of winning or losing as well as the cost of litigation AND settlement. Decisions are not based upon ego. They are based upon the best economic solution for the organization.

With government we don't have the same kind of logic or methodology in play at all. Pradel and his merry bunch of nincompoops aren't spending a dime of their own money and even if they lose we can't throw them all out at once so they even have time and the possibility on their side that the voters will soon forget about how this $5 million dollars was squandered. No matter what happens the taxpayers will be left cleaning up the mess Pradel and the rest of the idiots created.

Fact is there isn't a single profit making corporation anywhere in the United States that would have spent $5 million dollars defending a lawsuit that they could have settled for $100K. Another fact is that Pradel and the rest of his merry bunch should have given him the $100K and then used that against him come the next election and it probably would have worked to their advantage. The problem with ego though is that you often don't think clearly. And when vengeance is the motive that tends to happen. Plus at this point IF Dick wins the city is going to be shamed, Dick is going to be vindicated, and the average Joe is going to feel he deserves anything he gets.

The establishment could not have played their hand more poorly on this one. The next time these clowns get together for a poker game I hope I get an invite. It will be like taking candy from a baby.

There goes most of Furstenau's case. Collin's can't really be thinking of appealing this can he? How long can he work for free on such a loser case? Drop the case and move on Mr. Furstenau.
Furstenau has already made sure he is known in the history books of Naperville as the darkest chapter ever written. For claiming to be such a watchdog of the taxpayer he sure has proved himself wrong. What a waste of time and money Furstenau turned out to be in the end. He may have helped a few people over the past ten years but all things being equal he sure has stuck it to the taxpayers with this lawsuit.
Typical Illinois "me, me, me" politician.

To: "Anonymous on March 9, 2009 6:40 PM"

I have no beef with the judges ruling. I accept it for what it is and get on with life. The rest of the saga is a crybaby attempt at extortion, in my opinion. We'll have to see what the judge says to that one too and win or lose, I'll accept it just like the first one.

Will you? Will Dick appeal if he loses? Will he finally let it go?

Anonymous wrote:

"Do a little research on lawsuits and there are references to plenty of articles that have studied the outcome of lawsuits. Statistically there is a small advantage of winning going in favor of the party who files the lawsuit as opposed to the party defending itself."

I'll take your word on that. But it has nothing to do with the particulars of this case.

As a resident, I would rather see a million tax dollars go to the defense of any utterly ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit than one dime go to this "public servant". Dick and the Giant Ego can try to extort money elsewhere. And when the entire case falls, all you DF supporters had better remember just how much his "right to defend his civil rights" cost you in the wallet! Make a note of it Sybil, so you can bring it up as often as you refer to the Napergate man.

For those of you that think his actions on Jan. 1st, 06 were alcohol induced, his son clearly refutes it and I believe him. Dick has demonstrated time and time again that he operates within the framework of a lifetime of anger mismanagement, the classic bully coupled with an Ego to match. What family member can refute that fact.

I don't care what he may have done for individual residents or what cost saving measures he may have championed in the past, he is a liability as a leader of the entire City of Naperville workforce and NEEDS TO GO!!! Undoubtedly, he will not have the public conscience to resign at the end of his suit, so the generally apathetic voters in this community had better take their disgust to the polls when his term is up.

By South Side Resident on March 9, 2009 3:18 PM

Rest safe and secure Naperville... Furstenau and his lawyer see this as a tragic example of out-of-control, vindictive local officials. As an elected member of city council if something like this could happen to him imagine what could happen to an average Joe? Furstenau and his lawyer should be commended for taking steps to ensure that these bullies be exposed for who they are and what they are. Elect more people like Furstenau who have a strong sense of right and wrong and who have the integrity and moral fortitude to stand up and fight for what is right!

By John Q. Public on March 9, 2009 10:03 AM

Do a little research on lawsuits and there are references to plenty of articles that have studied the outcome of lawsuits. Statistically there is a small advantage of winning going in favor of the party who files the lawsuit as opposed to the party defending itself.

By Original Joe on March 9, 2009 8:13 AM

Dunderhead! You miss the point. Dick was arrested, charged, and prosecuted. The entire prosecution team had full access to all of the facts that were eventually presented to the judge. The entire prosecution team couldn't see the forest for the trees and maliciously proceeded with the trial The judge clearly saw it for what it was and found Dick not guilty.

Obviously you have a beef with the judges ruling... of course you are smarter and know better than the presiding judge.

By anonymous on March 9, 2009 8:03 AM

You don't know jack. A lawyer takes a case like this on contingency. If Collins loses the case Dick doesn't owe him a dime.

Wake up Naperville...Furstenau and his lawyer see this as a cash cow..able to fill the retirement coffers..nothing more. Mental anguish "BS". Get this guy off the council...

Let us give all City Council Members Mental Examinations. on March 8, 2009 10:02 AM
None of you stepped forward and asked for the resignation of the City Council when the Napergate Man exposed them for what they were.....NOT ONE OF YOU You are all talkers with no backbone of integrity.


Yes, and you are the poster child for integrity? Ever since you were outed as the lone Napergatian posing as at least 50 different pseudonyms you have been trying to become relevant. First you spent weeks with your Hamas / Israel rants. Then you spent time with the parking garage fiasco. To now come on and stick up for tricky Dick and then have the audacity to scold the rest of us regarding our integrity is too much.

Furstenau can do whatever he wants, it's a free country. But if he claims that he suffers from a mental ailment due to this event then he should be examined by a professional to determine just how "violated" he truly is.

Anonymous wrote:

"IF Furstenau wins his lawsuit, and statistically, the chance of winning tips in his favor he will become an instant media darling, his reputation as David vs Goliath will become legendary, and he will be re-elected to office for as long as he cares to run. Plus, how sympathetic do you think any jury is going to be in a case where city officials attempted to frame a duly elected official?"

What statistics do you have to show that the "chance of winning tips in his favor"? Your line of argument begs the question.

DF did not have 'false charges' brought against him. There was contact, as pointed out by the judge. It did not meet the threshold for the charge, however. Because of that lack of meeting the threshold, the verdict was Not Guilty. End of story. The lawsuit is ridiculous and should be looked at as the true vindictive action in this whole thing.

Anon @ 11:02 pm,
You don't know jack. Can you name ONE THING that has gone right for Dicky boy IN THE FEDERAL COURT ROOM? Nope. You can't. Because his case sucks. City has already been dismissed, twice. The judge has let this go on long enough and is about to toss the whole thing out IMHO. Anyone who reads this case sees that it could not be going worse for Furstenau. Dick is going to owe his lawyers a TON of cash pretty soon and he will not be able to afford to pay them. The city should go after him for whatever they can as well for forcing them to fight a fraudulent case brought against them. This case will bankrupt Furstenau in the end.

Sorry, but several of you don't know what in the heck you are talking about... not even close.

IF Furstenau wins his lawsuit, and statistically, the chance of winning tips in his favor he will become an instant media darling, his reputation as David vs Goliath will become legendary, and he will be re-elected to office for as long as he cares to run. Plus, how sympathetic do you think any jury is going to be in a case where city officials attempted to frame a duly elected official?

On the outside chance that Furstenau does not win his case he may or may not get re-elected. That is a mixed bag depending upon lots of factors. Truth be known, Furstenau still has one heck of a lot of supporters. Any way, for Furstenau to lose his case it would pretty much require all of the hand picked jurors to collectively be brain dead and the defense has little practical hope of that happening.

If you think the rest of the city council members and the mayor aren't sweating blood at this point you just don't really appreciate how up to their neck in serious trouble they all are.

Mark @ 1:37,
Furstenau couldn't run for dog catcher in Naperville now. He is politically dead after this ego trip.
Those of you who think Dick will win anything about this case do not know what you are talking about. His case sucks almost as bad as his lawyer. Collins tried to line his pockets with the 204 case and lost and he is tring to stick it to the taxpayers here as well and will get nothing. Super-lawyer my ***! Trying to get rich on the backs of the people never works!!

Furstenau has to go away. He is an absolute embarrassment to our fine city. His actions have made him the 'poster boy' for all that's bad about government. I encourage the city to do the right thing and fight Furstenau and his money grabbing antics to the end. The bottom line is that evil prevails when good people do nothing, hence we can not allow Furstenau to prevail.

Richard Furstenau has been one of two city councilman to come to a homeowner’s aid. The people requiring mental examinations are the politicians running this city into the ground. An election is coming, and April would be a good time to make some changes.

They should not give this giant ego one penny. If they settle with him then you will have everybody else going to the city wanting a settlement.

Why does this clown think he was going to win an election anyways? Obviously he does not care about the citizens of Naperville only his own rear end.

Furstenau sickens me. It's astounding that someone who wants to empty the city's coffers to satisfy his immense ego has the audacity to sit on the City Council and pretend that he represents the people of Naperville. Dick represents just one person: himself.

There is, however, one good that will come of this mess: After the publicity and shame of this incident, Furstenau will never be elected to state-wide office. He won't have a prayer. He won't impose himself on the rest of the citizens of Illinois.

I have no doubt that he will be on the City Council for as long as he likes -- there are enough sychophants out there who seem very happy to bow down to Furstenau -- but that's as far as he goes.

I found the heading of this thread very disturbing.

Why should DF have his head examined? For exercising his constitutional right to hold the authorities who brought false charges against him accountable. I would have done the same.

City officials attempted to frame DF by bringing false felony charges against him. All he was doing is making a point that cars should not be towed by police if they failed to put up signs on the sidewalks in a proper and timely manner. He was being a citizen advocate as he was elected to be. A police officer was being arrogant and not listenting to reason and common sense. If we are going to pay 60k for a rookie policeman out of college, we better give him a mental examination before we hire him to make sure he has common sense.....


To Anonymous,

I agree with you that they should have their heads examined.....each and every city council member and the city attorneys. Again they spent $895,000 as of 2 months ago and it may be over a million now. When this case is over it will be certainly over $5 million just like in the Napergate Case. Just imagine the trial and appeals have not sarted and we have one milion in sunk costs.

There is no doubt in my mind if city council members are willing to defend a 100k suit with 5 million dollars in taxpayer money that they have something to hide as Anonymous stated or at least massively loose bearings. The city council needs to be held accountable for this waste of money in a recessionary economy. They should all be charged with CLASS X Felonies for abusing hard earned taxpayer money.

And finally, if all you bloggers want DF to resign, I hope that when and if he wins his case, you all call for the resignation of the other 8 city council members for wasting 5 million dollars. None of you stepped forward and asked for the resignation of the City Council when the Napergate Man exposed them for what they were.....NOT ONE OF YOU. You are all talkers with no backbone of integrity.

I commend Ryan Furstenau for coming on here and telling the truth using his own name. Kudos to him!

Should all of the city council members have THEIR heads examined for approving the legal department spending $1,000,000 on something that could have been settled for $100,000? YES, they did.

It doesn't take a very smart person to figure out that a group of people will approve spending money like this only when they have SOMETHING TO HIDE.

Everyone seems to be upset at the cost of this mess.

But everyone seems to not understand that it is the City of Naperville who chose to retain expensive high powered attorneys to deal with an insiginificant "he said, she said" case that may involve touching on the chest or shoulder in a worse case scenario.

Dick Furstenau is not spending a nickel of taxpayer money. He has Shawn Collins representing him for a contingency.

The city council members need to have mental examinations to determine their sanity in feeling the need to spend 5 million dollars defending a $100,000 suit. They should have found an attorney who would do it with a cap of $25,000. That is it. If they couldn't, than settle early with an apology. Saying your sorry is not a crime even if you feel you are not wrong. But abusing 5 million dollars of taxpayer money is a crime. Every council member should be charged and thrown in jail after his head is examined.

This is not the first time this happened. In the Napergate Man case city officials and attorneys followed the same course of action and spent barrels and barrels of money and challenged all the Napergate Cases to one step removed from the Federal and State Supreme Courts before raising the white flag of surrender.

What made them raise the white towel was not their non-stop losses to the Napergate Man in courtroom after courtroom, but the taxpayers being fed up with all this waste of money to satisfy their political egos against a man who dared to challenge them politically in full page ad after full page ad and apparently finally got under their thin skin.

The taxpayers need to put pressure on the City of Naperville to stop this insanity of giving our money to greedy attorneys whose only interest is to jack up the bills as high as possible knowing taxpayers can jointly afford it.

At this point DF, is not going to accept an apology. The city needs to write his attorney a check for a 100k or 200k and save the next 4 million in legal fees before it is wasted on a trial and appeals. One million has already been wasted. If the next 4 million is wasted, the records will be lost just as in that infamous Napergate Case. The city will never allow the truth to be known as it would be a second slap to the face.

Larry Williams,
It's very unfortunate that you have a forum such as this to knowingly make stuff up and offer it up as fact for those less-enlightened readers. If you asked all the bartenders and bar owners in Naperville how many times they have served Dick anything other than a Diet Coke over the last 32 years he's lived in Naperville, I guaranty the answer is "ZERO!" For reasons that reach far beyond your ability to comprehend, Dick has never had an alcoholic beverage for the 33 years I've been alive.
Quit making stuff up, and looking like an idiot. Anyone that knows Dick, knows he doesn't drink alcohol.

"Furstenau Backhand"
If you want to see the results of an interesting Blood Alcohol test, I'd suggest you research the results of Naperville Police Officer Trotsky (spelling??). Remember he was the cop who was pulled over an arrested for drunk driving by one of his fellow Naperville Officers. After an internal investigation by the Upstanding NPD, Trotsky was given a slap on the wrist while the arresting officer was disciplined. Let me save you the suspense...Trotsky's BAC was more than twice the legal limit. That's a fact. The blood test was done at Edwards Hospital hours after the arrest.

I appreciate the forum that you've provided. We, as a family, understand the possible affects of this lawsuit, and can deal with the public opinions. However, I would appreciate some sort of filter when it comes to obvious slander. You know that Dick doesn't drink. And you know that his BAC was ZERO the day in question.

Again, thanks for the thread.

TO: By Larry Williams on March 7, 2009 7:19 AM

"My facts may be wrong, but seriously both parties need to get over it. This isn't a case worth 100K or $100." This is the best apology you can muster? OK we will still accept it.

"The core business of the city is not advancing and not interested in both party’s egos." Clearly you know as little about politics if you believe that.

"I don't know who's right or wrong and I don't care...bottom line.
Citizens - Don't slap cops.
Cops - Don't harass."

Well, let's see... one judge ruled Dick F didn't slap and another judge has allowed the lawsuit on harassment to proceed. The bottom line is that it is appalling to read that you "don't care" what really went on that day. If you have so little time to get involved with local issues and so little time to know the actual facts about local issues and are so apathetic about government officials who may have crossed the line... which has bigger implications for all citizens to consider... why are you now bothering to post such gibberish?

I for one want to know the truth about what went on behind closed doors in the days immediately after this incident. There are lots of others who are demanding to know the truth. There is a wide-spread belief that Officer Hull was forced to act like a patsy by those above him who exerted a lot of pressure and influence on him to file the original charges.

Political corruption is nothing new in this state and it is not limited to state-wide politics and it isn't limited to just the democratic party. When the entire truth comes out on this case and if the version of truth happens to fall the way Dick F is telling it I think we need to realize that the mayor, several city council members, the city attorney, the chief of police, and the past city manager may have a federal investigation started on their actions and could very well end up in prison like Blago and Ryan. That is a version of the truth I think we all have a vested interest in knowing what really went on. Now, on the other hand, if none of them did anything wrong then they have absolutely nothing to fear from this trial, especially knowing the good citizens of Naperville are footing the bill for their legal expenses REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME... INNOCENT OR GUILTY!

First and foremost Dick F is a citizen and like all citizens he is entitled to his day in court. If you can't or don't understand or agree with than then you either don't understand our form of government or don't cherish the freedom and liberties the rest of us do.

One of the interesting parts of this incident is this. Police officers report thru their chain of command to the police chief. The chief reports to the city manager. The city manager reports to the city council. A police officer arresting a member of the city council is, in effect, arresting his own boss. In the private sector this would be the equivalent of a security guard taking on a member of the corporations board of directors.

While it is sometimes necessary to arrest city council members I would hope that this would be reserved for the most outrageous conduct and never be used for trivial matters. Make no mistake what happened that day was truly trivial. What we had was an elected member of our city council advocating for the citizens who elected him in from of a highly trained police officer who are specifically trained to be aggressive, threatening, and intimidating. And like a typical union hack whenever an officer is questioned on something like what Officer Hull was doing that day they can be depended upon to spew forth the mind-numbing response of "just following orders" despite the fact we expect them to have enough intelligence to obtain a college degree. Now what I have always found really, really, really interesting about this inciden is that Officer Hull did not question the order given to him by his immediate supervisor, but found it appropriate to question his superior's superior. That speaks volumes about the "we" vs "them" mentality that permeates city workers in general and police officers in specific. What is also really, really, really interesting is why Officer Hull didn't get on his radio and request a shift commander respond to the scene to discuss the matter with a member of the elected city council especially since he made it obviously clear that he was not empowered to question a supervisors order even though he was empowered to question an elected member of city council.

So you just want to be done with it and get it over and move on? Yeah, that would be nice, but I still want to know how the Naperville Police will be treating our elected officials from here on as well as the rest of the citizens of Naperville. I'm also the kind of person who looks for solutions that will help avoid repeat instances like this from happening in the future. One of the available solutions already exists under state law and that is to give all elected members of city council police powers. (Granted there are more than a few issues with someone like Grant Wherli being issued a badge and a gun but we can save that discussion for another time.) Lots of communities already do this and for a variety of reasons. From a very practical level I view this action as being necessary to take the legal loophole away from police officers who exert the legal authority to intimidate and threaten everyone including elected officials that they are interfering with "official police business". This is nothing more than being a legal bully at times and if they both are police officers then the threat goes away and they are just two police officers having a beef with each other. This is an option available under the law that every city council member if free to pursue on their own and at their own discretion. They don't need anyones approval to do it either. And if the defendants are actually found guilty the reality of other city council members needing such protection will become obviously clear.

"Larry Williams" does post a lot of inaccuracies. However, I would have loved to have seen a blood-alcohol test from that night on DF. It was, after all, near or outside one of his favorite watering holes. Not saying he was drunk, obviously. But even one drink could pose a problem.

Why isn't anyone asking what is the official process to quickly remove Dick from his position? Let's focus on eliminating this sore eye to our greater community. What political future? This is a tired old man who has problems sleeping. Who doesn't at his age? The community owes Dick NOTHING. People in our community are losing their jobs everyday and being taxed to pay for this circus act. This is all about the thrill of staying in the eye of the public. Dick please look in the mirror and accept the fact that your an embarrassment to all the folks associated with your former years at AT&T and now the greater community of Naperville. A quiet exit with some dignity is your only choice.

Mark Metzger just learned a valuable lesson. When I walk past his office in downtown Naperville, I can only pray I see a "For Rent" sign. His leadership cost us taxpayers millions in wasted legal fees and cost delays with the District 204 high school decisions due to his ego. Please consider avoiding any current and future business with Mr. Metzger.

Anonymous (use your real name),

My facts may be wrong, but seriously both parties need to get over it. This isn't a case worth 100K or $100.

The core business of the city is not advancing and not interested in both party’s egos.

I don't know who's right or wrong and I don't care...bottom line.

Citizens - Don't slap cops.
Cops - Don't harass.

freddy ,

Hull may or may not be a nice guy. Nice guys don't usually end up in professions like police. Be that what it may if you or I "slapped" Hull we would have been arrested on the spot. Hull and every other officer are made fully aware of who the elected officials and other prominent citizens are in Naperville. Hull knew full well who Fursteanau was. The fact that Hull did not arrest Furstenau on the spot and waited several days speaks volumes about other people putting pressure on Hull behind the scenes.

I think Hull is more of sucker for allowing himself to be placed in the position of being a scapegoat than anything else.

Larry Williams,

Not sure where you are getting your facts but nearly everything you posted is factually wrong.

Alright boys...up to your rooms with no supper.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this whole case vs. the City of Naperville (Police) stems from Richard Fursteanau getting drunk on New Years Eve and assulting a police officer.

Furstenau got his feelings hurt when an officer during crowd control asked people to move from an area, apparently the officer did not "respect his authority" as a Councilman, and Fursteanau slapped officer when he confronted him.

Because Fursteanu's ego is in the way he is suing the city for a considerable amount of money.

For the sake of saving the city a bundle of money and to move on to more pressing items such as erecting another stop sign in the city I propose a solution:

City of Naperville (Policeman)- Apologize to Councilman Fursteanu. "Sorry for not realizing who you were and treating you as an average drunk person."

Mr. Fursteanu - Apologize to the officer for slapping him.

Both shake or possibly hug.

Give the mayor a photo opp with both boys giving the thumbs up sign. Yes we can!

Please drop this wasteful lawsuit. It is the only way you can keep what little respect people have for you. It is in the best interests of all Naperville taxpayers that this comes to an end. The city has no choice in defending their employees. All the power to bring an end to this lies with you. Haven't you put poor Connie thru enough? For her, just drop it.
Please stop wasting money in a time when most people are fearful of losing their jobs.
Please do the right thing and walk away.

Anonymous wrote:

"The better question really becomes why in the world would the city and its attorneys play the game like this and let the cost of settlement grow on something like mental anguish that has no way to be objectively measured or proven?"

It's DF who is alleging mental anguish. If the city does not challenge him on this, then they cede that point to him.

I can prove that this is not true, can you prove your statement true?

By Furstenau's Backhand on March 6, 2009 2:26 PM

First Anonymous,
The long line of "homeowners" pretty much consisted of everyone that Furstenau goes to church with.

DUMP DICK QUICK!!! Its time to sue DICK and make him pay back the city for all the money he has wasted. If you have been downtown and met or talked with officer Hull, you would know that he is light hearted and easy to get along with. Officer Hull would give you the shirt of his back.... BUT DICK JUST WANTS TO BITE THE HAND OF A GOOD COP.

First Anonymous,
The long line of "homeowners" pretty much consisted of everyone that Furstenau goes to church with.

Shawn "I have no ethics even though I went to Notre Dame" Collins must be getting paid to write these blogs.
Educate yourself people. This case is, and always has been about MONEY. Furstenau is trying to punch his meal-ticket at the expense of us taxpayers. I for one am glad that the city is fighting this case. Please do not give Tricky-Dick any money. From what I am reading, not info you will find in the Naperville Sun mind you, his case is falling apart! Send this bully packing and let him take his crack legal team with him.


We would save ten times the money in the long run if we kept Dick and dumped Ely and the rest of her staff. None of them are competent enough to take any claim to trial, none of them can actually litigate... for that we always hire outside counsel.

Enough is enough. Cut out Ely and the rest as nothing more than a bunch of expensive, do nothing, middle men. Outsource the legal needs to the lowest bidder and lower our taxes.

What a quagmire! So, if the shrinks come to the conclusion that Furstenau is suffering "mental distress" etc. that is a big step to empyting more of the city coffers. Plus, if the above comes to be, what does it say about a city councilman making rational decisions on complex decisions that involve the use of city funds? The city is taking a big gamble here (not to mention the massive taxpayer funds involved in the litigation) and Naperville stands to lose even more. The simply apology and reimbursement of the $100K would have been the sensible thing to do. Let's hope money magazine doesn't hear about this or the city may well be knocked off its perfch as one of the best places to live in America.... i.e. a huge lawsuit draining taxpayer money and a mentally unstable city councilman who could well cast a tiebreaker vote on some insane issue that will cost taxpayers even more. It's a disaster on every front. The lawyers involved in thbe city's side of the case are morons...check that they're "lawyers" whose main goal is to feed at the trough...and Naperville, apparently, has a huge trough.

Although we might take umbrage in the fact that the Chicago democratic machine elected the Bagman and therefore the blame for the state's financial mess lies mostly with them, we must blame ourseleves for electing Dick. I also think Margo Ely (city attorny) was negligent in failing to prosecute since she never droped the charges. If it were anyone else besides the citizens who were paying for the litigation I might be in his corner. But to sue the taxpayers is CRAZY! Let's dump Dick as soon as possible.

The lawyers for the City just want to make sure they milk and cream the city for 5 million dollars before this case is over. They know city officials are not the sharpest cookies alive.

About 2 months ago, it was disclosed this case has cost taxpayers $895,000 dollars at a Naperville Homeowners' meeting. It is certainly over a million bucks by now.

Furstenau exercised his right to sue given to him by the Constitution. His case was not dismissed by the Judge which indicates it has some merit....for sure it is not friviloous whether he wins or loses.

But Fursteanu did not demand the City Council spend $5 million on him because of their egos. A 10k-25k flat fee ordinary civil rights attorney could have done just fine. The worse scenario if he loses is we pay Furstenau a 100k. Big Deal! This is a lot less than $5 million.

Let us not forget that at one point Furstenau just wanted an apology. At a later point he was just looking for a 100k or so he lost running for State Office. So it is ludicrous to blame Furstenau for this massive expense which is being compounded by mental examinations....give me a break. What psychologist can get in your mind to see if you had nightmares about an incident....none...all psychologists do is guess, speculate and come to conclusions. Furtenau's psychologist will disagree with the City's psychologist and it will be a stalemante.....except that the taxpayers would have lost up the wazoo!!!

The city is determined to let this case follow the path of the Napergate Man case which they lost after spending 5 million dollars of taxpayer funds or some large amount that they refuse to disclose 10 years later.

Let us hope the City does not appeal this case to every court in the land as they did with the Napergatge Man case. I say enough is enough. Give Furtenau his 100k and fire all these attorneys before they skim 5 million dollars from us.....the TAXPAYERS! This is a depression and we can not afford money hungry greedy attorneys taking advantage of our naive and egotistical city council members. Would the city council go down this path if this was their personal money? Of course not! So why are they wasting our money???

Settling this case will not result in a barage of frivilous cases as some have speculated. Attorneys can be sued if they bring frivilous cases and certainly will not do such a thing since they are paid a contingency and not by the hour in civil rights cases when representing plaintiffs. They are never going to waste their time and money, bringing forward a frivilous case forward for a contingency...common sense. Let us settle with Furstenau while we are only down a million bucks. Settling after we are down 5 million to attorneys makes no sense.

"If the glove does not fit you must aquit" O.J. found not guilty... he too should be able to sue those involved. In Mr. Furstenau`s case, If the Shove does not fit you must aquit. He too was found not guilty, but does not mean it did not happen as told by the officer involved. This law suit is a crime against the tax payers of Naperville not only those directly or indirectly involved. Oh boo-hoo, he lost the election. What will the results be when he runs for another office? This suit certainly will not be a favorable mark on his service record. If he would loose the next time he runs for a piblic office maybe he could claim that his law suit ruined his reputation and that it was the City of Naperville`s fault that they did not "cave" on his demands. Sometimes life isn`t always like we would like it to be, so usually, people simply put thing in their past and go on with their lives. Vengence is another story... when you can not go on because your focus is on blaming others for for your failure to forgive and forget. Too late to drop the issue now, he must save face. Perhaps someone remembers, were there any postponements in his trial that would have put the proceedings off until after the election or could all of this have been handled prior to the election in question and his loss?

Dick and his legal team will laugh all the way to the bank on this one.

The perplexing thing about this motion are the statements along the lines of "City attorneys want to examine Furstenau to evaluate the mental distress portion of the claims." If the city has been released as a defendant in this lawsuit as has been previously reported then don't their motions get dismissed along with their responsibility? Hmm?

But, back to the issue at hand. Make no mistake, the attorneys who filed this motion did so as part of their continued campaign to ridicule, embarrass, and demean Dick Furstenau. As the old saying goes... be careful what you wish for because your wish might just come true. Well now the motion has been upheld and Dick will have to sit down with some court appointed shrink. Big deal. If you think he isn't ready for that conversation and how much it will end up adding to the cost of settlement you are playing as poor of a chess game with this issue as is the city.

The better question really becomes why in the world would the city and its attorneys play the game like this and let the cost of settlement grow on something like mental anguish that has no way to be objectively measured or proven?

Maybe we all ought to get together and file a class action lawsuit against the City of Naperville for all of the pain and anguish the residents are going through from this lawsuit dragging on and on and on. It is time for the City of Naperville to get out their checkbook, sit down at the bargaining table, and for once work in good faith to settle this lawsuit and put it behind us and them.

When Furstenau was censured or disciplined by the City Council a long line of homeowners testified to Council about the good works of this man.

If the situation were reversed and the rest of the Council were being censured, it would be a long line of developers, attorneys from one law firm and bar owners testifying about all the good things they get from the City Council.

Leave a comment

Naperville Potluck

The Sun invites you to share opinions about news and issues. Have a question? E-mail us.  


About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Naperville Sun editors published on March 23, 2009 6:25 PM.

What can be done to make 75th Street crossing safe? was the previous entry in this blog.

What do you think of the park board candidates? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.