RECEVED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
State
of
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
FEB
U
52809
James
R
Thompson
Center
STATE
OF
LUNOIS
100
W
Randolph
Street
Suite
11-500
PoiIuton
Conird
Board
In
The
Matter
Of:
)
)
Jerrald
R
West
II,
)
)
Complainant(s)
-vs-
)
PCB
2009-45
)
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
)
P.O.
Box
#90
)
Nokomis,
11
62075
)
AKA:
P.O.
Box
#500244
)
St
Louis,
MO.
63
150-0244
)
)
Respondent(s)
)
ENTRY
OF
APPEARANCE
NOW
COMES
EDWARD
Q.
COSTA,
of
Samuels,
Miller,
Schroeder,
Jackson
&
Sly,LLP,
and
hereby
enters
his
appearance
on
behalf
of
Nokomis
QualTy
Company
in
the
above-entitled
cause,
SAMUELS,
MLLLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY
LLP
BY:
EDWARD
Q.
COSTA
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
The
undersigned
hereby
certifies
that
on
the______
day
ofFebmaiy,
2009
he
sewed
a
copy
of
the
foregoing
Entry
of
Appearance
by
depositing
the
same
in
a
United
States
Post
Office
Boxenc’osed
in
an
envelope
with
postage
fully
prepaid
upon
the
following:
Jerrald
R
West
II
765
Wash
Roberts
Road
McMinnville,
TN
37110
Pollution
Control
Board,
Attn:
Clerk
100
West
Randolph
Street
James
R.
Thompson
Center,
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
IL
60601-3218
EDWARD
Q.
COSTA
SAMUELS,
MILLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
LLP
Attorneys
for
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
225
North
Water
Street,
Suite
301
P.
0.
Box
1400
Decatur,
IL
62525-1400
Telephone:
(217)
429-4325
State
of
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
James
R
Thompson
Center
100
W
Randolph
Street
Suite
11-500
CLERKOPFI
In
The
Matter
Of:
)
Jerrald
R
West
II,
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Control
Board
Complainant(s)
-vs-
)
PCB
2009-45
Nokoinis
Quarry
Company
)
P.O.
Box
#90
)
Nokomis,
II
62075
)
AKA:
P.O.
Box
#500244
)
St
Louis,
MO.
63
150-0244
)
)
Respondent(s)
)
RESPONDENT’S
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
FORMAL
COMPLAINT
FILED
BY
JERRALD
R
WEST
II
NOW
COMES
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
corporation,
by
its
attorneys,
Samuels,
Miller,
Schroeder,
Jackson
&
Sly,
LLP,
and
in
support
of
its
Motion
to
Dismiss
the
Formal
Complaint
Filed
by
Jerrald
R
West
II,
states
the
following:
INTRODUCTION
Complainant
(“Jerrald
West’)
has
filed
a
document
called
“Formal
Complaint”
with
the
Pollution
Control
Board.
The
Formal
Complaint
was
sent
by
Certified
Mail
to
the
attorneys
for
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
with
an
envelope
postmarked
January
8,
2009.
The
Formal
Complaint
was
received
on
January
14,
2009
(Exhibit
“A”).
It
is
unknown
if
a
copy
of
the
Formal
Complaint
has
been
sent
to
the
Respondent.
The
Formal
Complaint
is
unnotarized
and
undated.
-2-
Some
history
between
JelTald
West
and
Nokornis
Quarry
Company
(the
“Quarry’)
needs
to
be
stated.
Attached
as
Exhibits
“B”,
“C”,
“D”
and
“E”
are
four
versions
of
a
Complaint
with
accompanying
Motion(s)
to
Dismiss
filed
in
a
lawsuit
entitled
Jerrald
R
West
II
vs.
Nokornis
Quarty
Compatn’
in
the
Circuit
Court
of
the
Fourth
Judicial
Circuit,
Montgomery
County,
illinois,
Case
No.
07-L-25.
At
the
time
the
lawsuit
was
filed,
Jerrald
West
had
a
mailing
address
of
P.
0.
Box
181,
Wifl,
Illinois
62094.
The
address
stated
in
the
Formal
Complaint
before
the
Pollution
Control
Board
is
765
Wash
Roberts
Road,
McMinnville,
Tennessee
37110.
The
issues
raised
in
the
Formal
Complaint
are
identical
to
or
substantially
similar
to
the
issues
raised
by
Jerrald
West
in
the
Montgomery
County,
Illinois
lawsuit.
The
first
pleading
in
the
Montgomery
County,
Illinois
lawsuit
was
filed
by
Mr.
West
on
October
26,
2007.
After
a
Court
hearing,
the
lawsuit
was
dismissed
without
prejudice
on
December
11,
2007
(Exhibit
“B”).
The
second
pleading
was
filed
on
December
28,
2007
and
after
a
hearing,
it
was
dismissed
by
the
Court
without
prejudice
on
February
21,
2008
(Exhibit
“C”).
The
third
pleading
was
filed
on
March
10,
2008
and
after
a
hearing,
was
dismissed
by
the
Court
without
prejudice
on
April
22,
2008
(Exhibit
“D”).
The
fourth
pleading
was
filed
on
May
12,
2008
and
after
a
hearing,
was
dismissed
by
the
Court
yjjfi
prejudice
on
June
23,
2008
(Exhibit
“E”).
The
Record
Sheet
for
the
Montgomery
County
lawsuit
is
attached
as
Exhibit
“F”.
Now
Jerrald
West
has
filed
a
Fonnal
Complaint
with
the
Pollution
Control
Board.
The
Quany
is
in
the
business
of
manufacturing
State
inspected
limestone
used
by
several
Agencies
in
the
State
of
Illinois,
contractors
and
individual
consumers.
Among
other
things,
the
Quarry
sells
its
product
to
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“JEPA”),
Illinois
-3-
Department
of
Natural
Resources
(“DNR”)
and
other
Agencies
associated
with
the
State
of
Illinois.
As
stated
in
the
Affidavit
of
Ronald
K.
Koehier,
General
Manager
of
the
Quarry
(attached
to
Exhibit
“D”),
only
two
loads
of
chip
rock
have
been
sold
by
the
Quarry
to
the
City
of
Witt,
Illinois
(where
JelTald
R
West
resided)
since
2002,
ic.,
42.25
tons
in
July,
2007,
and
the
chip
rock
met
Illinois
Department
of
Transportation
(‘DOT”)
specifications.
Specifically,
the
chip
rock
sold
in
July,
2007
was
inspected
by
an
independent
consultant.
The
inspection
tests
consisted
of
drying
and
screening
the
rock
to
ensure
that
the
rock
met
with
State
of
Illinois
specifications
according
to
a
sieve
analysis
outlined
by
LDOT.
After
inspection
tests
were
performed,
the
rock
was
marked
“Approved”
by
the
inspector
meaning
the
rock
met
DOT
quality
specifications
and
the
Quarry
could
sell
its
product
as
advertised.
The
Quarry
is
located
in
Nokornis,
Illinois
which
is
about
four
and
one-half
miles
northeast
of
Witt,
Illinois.
The
facilities
of
the
Quarry
have
been
inspected
by
the
IEPA
on
a
regular
basis.
The
most
recent
JEPA
inspection
occurred
on
November
2,
2007.
The
inspection
lasted
approximately
one
hour
and
no
issues
or
problems
were
reported
to
the
Quarry
by
the
IEPA
after
the
inspection.
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
1.
This
Motion
to
Dismiss
is
made
pursuant
to
Section
31(d)(l)
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act
(415
ILCS
5/31
(d)(
1))
and
Title
35
of
the
Illinois
Administrative
Code.
2.
The
Formal
Complaint
submitted
by
Jerrald
West
is
frivolous.
“Frivolous”
means
that
the
formal
complaint
seeks
relief
that
the
Board
does
not
have
the
authority
to
grant,
or
a
-4-
complaint
that
fails
to
state
a
cause
of
action
upon
which
the
Board
can
grant
relief.
35
Iii.
A
din.
Code
101.202.
3.
The
allegations
in
the
Fonnal
Complaint
are
void
of
facts
which
reasonably
inform
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
of
the
manner
and
extent
to
which
the
Environmental
Protection
Act
and/or
regulations
are
being
violated,
inasmuch
as
the
Formal
Complaint
is
factually
deficient,
it
is
frivolous’
within
the
meaning
of
the
rules
of
this
Board.
Roe/ce
v.
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
78
Ill.
App.
3d
476
(1979).
4.
The
Formal
Complaint
submitted
by
Jerrald
West
is
also
duplicative
within
the
meaning
ofSection
101.202
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board’s
procedural
rules.
“Duplicative”
means
the
matter
is
identical
or
substantially
similar
to
one
brought
before
the
Board
or
another
forum.
35
Iii.
Adrn.
Code
101.202.
A
lawsuit
filed
by
Jerrald
West
with
allegations
identical
or
substantially
similar
to
those
in
the
Formal
Complaint
has
been
dismissed
by
the
Montgomery
County
Circuit
Court.
Mr.
West’s
Fourth
Amended
Complaint
(lawsuit)
was
dismissed
with
prejudice
on
June
23,
2008.
5.
Jerrald
West
answers
“None”
when
asked
if
there
was
any
identical
or
substantially
similar
case
he
knows
of
that
is
already
pending
before
the
Board
(Pollution
Control
Board)
or
in
another
forum
against
this
Respondent
(the
Quarry)
for
the
same
alleged
pollution.
The
answer
of
Mr.
West
is
false.
The
Quarry
has
outlined
the
history
it
had
during
2007
and
2008
with
Mr.
West
concerning
the
Montgomery
County,
Illinois
lawsuit.
-.5-
6.
It
is
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
determine
what
Jerrald
West
is
alleging
and
requesting
from
this
Board.
In
paragraphs
9
and
11
of
the
Formal
Complaint,
Jerrald
West
attempts
to
describe
the
‘relief”
he
is
seeking.
It
appears
that
the
relief
being
sought
is
not
relief
the
Board
has
the
authority
to
grant.
As
indicated
in
his
Montgomery
County
lawsuit
and
in
this
Complaint.
the
goal
of
Jerrald
West
is
to
obtain
a
money
settlement
from
Nokomis
Quarry
Company.
The
lawsuit
in
Montgomery
County,
Illinois
was
dismissed
h
prcjudice.
Now
he
is
trying
to
get
a
monetary
settlement
from
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
through
the
Pollution
Control
Board.
WHEREFORE,
Respondent,
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
corporation,
requests
that
the
Pollution
Control
Board
not
accept
the
Complaint
made
by
Jenald
R
West
II
for
hearing.
Furthermore,
it
is
requested
that
Complainant’s
Formal
Complaint
be
dismissed
and
the
Pollution
Control
Board
award
Respondent
all
other
relief
the
Board
deems
proper.
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
corporation,
Respondent
SAMUELS,
MILLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
LLP
BY:
One
of
Its
Attorneys
-6-
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
The
undersied
hereby
ceifies
that
on
the______
day
of
Feba,
2009
he
served
a
copy
of
the
foregoing
Respondents
Motion
to
Dismiss
Formal
Complaint
Filed
by
Jerrald
R
West
II
by
depositing
the
same
in
a
United
States
Post
Office
Box
enclosed
in
an
envelope
with
postage
fully
prepal
d
upon
the
following:
Jerrald
R
West
II
765
Wash
Roberts
Road
McMimwille,
TN
37110
Pollution
Control
Board,
Attn:
Clerk
100
West
Randolph
Street
James
R.
Thompson
Center,
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
IL
60601-3218
EDWARD
Q.
COSTA
SAMUELS,MILLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
LLP
Attorneys
for
Nokomis
QualTy
Company
225
North
Water
Street,
Suite
301
P.
0.
Box
1400
Decatur,
IL
62525-1400
Telephone:
(217)
429-4325
‘ZI
____
ru
-
k-
1
_________
ru
_____
ru
_____
••••
;4
Q7
E
-
—
-
___
(1/
‘M
2i9/
751(i
59L
oQi/
9-rc-r9
/
6
7J/
33110N4s1
/QE
jc
7t’
AJ3QJ
QOhI
99
Q’/
/
cr
77
c’4/r1
II
F
P.
3
JL.L.
LJ
U(
u.i;1
-
—V
-
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
COUNTY
OF
MONTGOMERY
TO:
Illinois
Cfrcuit
In
the
matter
of:
Jcrrald
R
Wct
H
(PLAiNTIFF)
vs
FILED
The
Nokomis
Quarry,
ts
Owners
and
Fxccutivcs
OCT
2
6
2007
233
II
Taylorvilic
mad
MARY
WEBB
Nokornis.
Illinois.
QrtU1fCOUCI
1*
62075
(OEFENI)ANT)
4ThJvdij
COM
PLAINT
V
Now
comcs
,Jerrald
R
West
II
by
and
through
his
attorney
(Himself)
Requesting
i
Jury
Trial
for
which
Civil
damages
REAL
and
ONGOING
shall
be
sought
by
Remedy
or
Judgment
of
thc
Court.
This
suit
is
alleging
That
over
a
period
of
several
years
the
Defendant
has
sold
a
defective
product
which
has
caused
TOXIC
air
conditions
within
the
city
ofWitt.
H.
Chip
rock
full
ofsdimeni
is
causing
an
unsafe
breathing
environment.
As
well
Unregulated
Emissions
from
Quarry
operations
are
poisoning
air
quality.
Thus
Causing
Repeated
Daily
exposure
to
Fugitive
Particulate
matter
Known
to
be
hazardous
to
ones
health.
The
Plaintiff
and
his
family
are
exposed
to
these
particulaics
on
a
daily
basis
Involuntarily.
The
plaintiff
believes
these
actions
to
he
Unreasonable,
Dangerous,
and
is
causing
the
denial
of
Life.
Liberty.
and
(lie
Pursuit
of
happiness
Afforded
to
Him
and
his
family
under
the
Illinois
Constitution.
It
is
reasonable
for
the
Court
to
assume
that
the
defendant
knows
the
cffcct
of
V
Crystaline
Silica
Dust
and
Quarry
Lime
on
the
Human
Body
as
well
as
its
own
Employ
ees.
These
practices
include
hut
arc
not
limited
to:
Blatant
violations
of
lilinois
Adrnioistratve
Code.
TiUc
35
GuidelInes
specifically.
Chi,
Part
212301.
Subject
K.
entitled
Fugitive
particulate
matter,
and
that
Chip
rock
sold
to
the
city
of
Witt
has
and
is
Aerosolizing
Due
to
small
parliculatcs
which
don’t
Seem
to
disipate
The
PlaintilTshall
also
show
by
way
of
visual
evidence
That
NOT
EVEN
WATER
IS
BEING
USED
TO
ATTEMPT
TO
PREVENT
FUGITIVE
MATTER
FROM
LEAVING
TIlE
QUARRY
PREMISES.
In
fact
this
Plaintilfhclicvcs
this
may
be
for
financial
gain.
Therefore
This
PlaintitT
now
seeks
l)amagcs
Ir
himselfand
5
members
nihis
Immediate
ramify.
Due
to
long
(cmi
exposure
to
suspended
particulate
Matter.
J3ecause
of
the
appearance
ot
P.
4
_
,
,
i
i.
p
//
blatant
disregard
for
human
life
and
sufTcrage,
as
well
as
side
cfTccts
which
have
been
and
are
causing
Irreversible
health
problems
to
the
plaintiff
and
his
family
the
Plaintilf
is
seeking
the
sum
of
$6.000.000.OO.
Which
is
based
on
both
past
damages.
Future
hcalth
concerns,
and
Suffering
inflictcd
upon
the
plaintiff
The
Plaintiff
now
asks
The
Court
to
Order
that
the
State
Agency
Governing
Regulation
of
Quarry
Mining
be
notified
so
they
can
visually
and
by
subscribed
science
as
well
as
Governing
hoard
investigate.
The
Plaintiff
Requests
and
Motions
the
Court
f’or
an
Emergency
Discovery
Hearing
within
30
days
olthc
date
of
filing
of
this
complaint
Because
the
hazard
is
ongoing
and
a
public
health
threat
needing
to
be
addressed.
Finally
this
Plaintiff
Requests
this
matter
be
set
for
Jury
Trial
In
the
Illinois
Ciruit
court
with
Jurisdiction
in
this
matter,
and
as
well
Request
the
Defendant
answer
these
charges
by
way
of
“WRITTEN
RESPONSE”
and
Discovery.
S
7’
Jerrald
R
West
II
o/a
i
e
IA
AL
TIM
MIZERA
uct
c
UI
U3:1/p
p.5
/
Interrogatories
a.
Does
the
Defendant
Believe
they
are
in
compliance
with
IL
Title
35
EPA
CODE
regarding
FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE
MATTER,
212.30L?
b.
Is
the
defendant
aware
of
the
long
term
consequences
of
exposure
to
both
<PM2.5
micrometers
and
1987
<pm]
0
particulate
size
designations
put
forth
by
the
US
EPA
62fr-3
8652
for
24hr
Exposure.
c.
Does
the
Defendant
measure
Emissions
by
the
pound?
d.
Does
the
Defendant
believe
they
are
in
compliance
with
CERCLA
Reporting
requirements
for
“MAJOR
SOURCES”
Those
who
exceed
100
pounds
or
more
in
a24
hour
period?
e.
What
is
the
mineral
composition
of
Chip
rock
and
sediment
sold
to
the
cit
of
Witt?
Including
any
Testing
for
Lead.
Mercury,
Quartz.
Silica,
and
other
substances
regulated.
f.
Is
the
Defendant
aware
of
the
short
and
Long
term
Effects
of
fine
particulates
to
Humans?
g.
Does
the
Defendant
consider
its
practices
to
be
beneficial
to
the
human
Inhabited
envirornent?
This
Plaintiff
seeks
answers
to
these
questions
and
prays
the
Court
will
find
Great
Merit
to
the
Dangers
the
Quarry
poses.
P.
6
(Source:
Amended
at
20
III.
Reg.7605,
effective
May
22,
1996)
Section
212.209
Village
of
Win
netka
Generating
Station
(Repealed)
(Source:
Repealed
at
20
III.
Reg.
7605.
effective
May
22,
1996)
Section
212.210
Emissions
Limitations
for
Certain
Fuel
Combustion
Emission
Units
Located
in
the
Vicinity
of
Granite
City
a)
No
person
shall
cause
or
allow
emissions
of
PM-I
0
into
the
atmosphere
to
exceed
12.9
rig/i
(0.03
lbs/mrnbtu)
of
heat
input
from
fiLrels
other
than
natural
gas
during
any
one
hour
period
from
any
industrial
fuel
combustion
emission
units,
other
than
in
an
integrated
iron
and
steel
plant.
located
in
the
vicinity
of
Granite
City,
which
area
is
defined
in
Section
212.324(a)(1)(C)
of
this
Subpart.
b)
Emission
units
shall
comply
with
the
emissions
limitations
of
this
Section
by
May
11.
I
993,
or
upon
initial
start-up,
whichever
occurs
later.
(Source:
Amended
at
20
III.
Reg.7605,
cfTective
May
22,
1996)
SUBPART
K:
FUGITWE
PARTICULATE
MATTER
Section
212301
Fugitive
Particulate
Matter
No
person
shall
cause
or
allow
the
emission
of
fugitive
particulate
matter
from
any
process,
including
any
material
handling
or
storage
activity,
that
is
visible
by
an
observer
looking
generally
toward
the
zenith
at
a
point
beyond
the
property
line
of
the
source.
(Source:
Amended
at
20
III.
Reg.7605,
effective
May
22,
1996)
Section
212302
Geographical
Areas
of
Application
a)
Sections
212.304
through
212.310
and
2
12.312
of
this
Subpart
shall
apply
to
all
mining
operations
(SIC
major
groups
10
through
14),
manufacturing
operations
(SIC
major
groups
20
through
39
except
for
those
operations
subject
to
Subpart
S
of
this
Part
(Grain-Handling
and
Grain-Drying
Operations)
that
are
outside
the
areas
defined
in
Section
2
I2.32
4
(a)(I)
of
this
Part),
arid
electric
generating
operations
(SIC
group
491),
which
are
located
in
the
areas
defined
by
the
boundaries
of
the
following
townships,
notwithstanding
any
political
subdivisions
contained
therein,
as
the
township
boundaries
were
defined
on
October
1,
1979.
in
the
following
counties:
Cook:
All
townships
uct
UI
U3:17p
p.
7
/
*
EVIDENCE
SUBMISSION
Exhibit:
1-7
taken
afternoon
10/9/07,
consisting
of
26
pictures
with
date
encodement
reflecting
conditions
in
Witt,
Nokdmis
Proximity,
as
well
as
the
Nokomis
Quarry.
Exhibit:
8
Pictures
reflecting
the
existence
of
white
rock
on
or
prior
to
6/I
1/02.
Exhibit:
9
Pictures
taken
2005
Documenting
samples
and
conditions
after
rock
was
purchased
and
applied
to
Witt
roads.
Exhibit
10
Video
Evidence
showing
ongoing
emissions
from
Nokomis
Quarry
Oct
2007.
Exhibit:
11
Data
regarding
Guidelines
set
by
II
EPA
for
Fugitive
particulate
matter.
Title135
sec
212.301.
Exhibit:
12
Numerous
Affidavits
supporting
the
integrity
of
evidence
and
outlining
Contacts
with
both
the
US
EPA,
and
IL
EPA.
Exhibit:13
Actual
Samples
of
Materials
from
Witt
city
Streets
as
far
back
as
fall
2005.
Please
note
this
case
has
Relevant
data
still
currently
being
sought
from
NIH,
NIEH,
Dept
of
Conservation,
CDC,
Dept
Public
Health,
Dept
of
Conservation,
NIOEH.
FDA,
Dept
of
Mines
and
Minerals,
WHO,
DSM
IV,
11
EPA,
US
EPA,
US
Dept
Agriculture,
DNR,
and
CERCLA
(CLEAN
AIR
ACT
OVERSIGHT)
-
Oct
2S
07
03:1
7p
p.8
/41
SUBSEQUENT
MOTIONS
This
Plaintiff
Now
prays
that
the
Court
find
this
complaint
Qualifies
with
merit
based
on
health
implications
and
Initial
evidence
presented.
ThIs
Plaintiff
also
in
representing
Himself
Motions
the
court
for
accommodations
to
be
as
that
of
a
Out
of
state
lawyer
would
have
beingunfamiliar
with
Procedural
processes
in
this
State.
This
plaintiff
would
as
well
request
Subpoenas
be
issued
for
roadresurfacing
records
from
the
City
of
Witt,
and
the
Win
Elevator.
As
to
Origin,
and
Composition
of
the
materials
to
establish
the
Defendant
as
the
source
of
these
Materials.
As
well
this
plaintiff
requests
The
Court
Compel
the
illinois
EPA
todo
a
Thorough
Investigation
to
establish
if
the
Nokomis
Quarry
Practices
are
Unreasonable
and/or
dangerous.
As
well
as
compliance
with
Dept
regulations.
Finally
this
Plaintiff
would
request
the
Court
to
seek
opinions
of
Evirorimental
conditions
which
are
obvious
in
the
evidence
from
The
Dept
of
Public
Health
and
the
CDC
as
to
Short
term
acute
and
long
term
Exposure
to
the
Defendants
practices.
IN
THE
CIRCUIT
COURT
OF
THE
FOURTH
JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
PILED
JERRALD
R
WEST
II,
)
NOV
13
2007
Plaintiff
MARY
WEBB
Circuit
Court
Clerk
4TH
Judicial
Circuit
vs.
)
NO.
07-L-25
)
THE
NOKOMIS
QUARRY,
ITS
)
OWNERS
AND
EXECUTIVES,
)
)
Defendants.
)
DEFENDANT’S
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
AND
STRIKE
PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT
NOW
COMES
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
incorrectly
named
The
Nokomis
Quarry
in
Plaintiffs
Complaint,
by
its
attorneys,
Samuels,
Miller,
Schroeder,
Jackson
&
Sly,
LLP,
and
in
support
of
its
Motion
to
Dismiss
and
Strike
Plaintiffs
Complaint,
says:
1.
This
Motion
is
made
pursuant
to
several
provisions
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
2.
Section
2-6
12
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
states,
in
part,
that
if
any
pleading
is
insufficient
in
substance
or
form
or
if
the
pleadings
do
not
sufficiently
define
the
issues,
the
Court
may
order
other
pleadings
prepared.
3.
In
Plaintiffs
Complaint,
it
is
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
determine
what
‘actions”
the
Plaintiff
is
complaining
about.
The
Complaint
may
be
based
on
an
exposure
to
‘fugitive
particulate
matter”.
However,
the
Plaintiff
does
not
specifically
state
what
matter
it
is,
how
the
Plaintiff
was
exposed
to
the
particulate
matter
and
how
the
Defendant,
Nokomis
Quarry
Company,
was
involved
in
the
exposure.
-2-
4.
The
Plaintiff
also
recites
that
“blatant
violations”
of
the
Illinois
Administrative
Code
may
have
been
committed,
but
he
does
not
specifically
indicate
to
what
he
is
referring
and
how
the
Defendant,
Nokomis
Quarry
Company,
was
involved.
5.
Therefore,
Plaintiffs
Complaint
should
be
dismissed
by
the
Court
because
it
does
not
comply
with
Section
2-612
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
6.
Section
2-613
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
states,
in
part,
that
parties
may
plead
as
many
causes
of
action
as
they
may
have.
However,
each
cause
of
action
shall
be
separately
designated
and
numbered.
7.
In
this
case,
the
names
of
the
Defendants
and
the
cause(s)
of
action
against
each
are
unclear.
The
Complaint
recites
a
pleading
against
“The
Nokomis
Quarry,
Its
Owners
and
Executives”.
Furthermore,
the
only
named
Plaintiff
is
Jerrald
R.
West
II.
However,
the
Plaintiff
seeks
damages
for
five
(5)
unidentified
members
of
his
immediate
family.
8.
Therefore,
Plaintiffs
Complaint
should
be
dismissed
by
the
Court
because
it
does
not
comply
with
Section
2-613
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
9.
Plaintiffs
Complaint
is
also
in
violation
ofSection
2-615
of
the
Illinois
Code
ofCivil
Procedure.
10.
The
allegations
of
the
Complaint
are
substantially
insufficient
in
law
in
that
the
pleading
fails
to
state
a
cause
of
action.
Again,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
what
Plaintiff
is
complaining
of,
but
the
pleading
may
be
stating
that
the
Defendant
sold
a
“defective
product”.
-3-
However,
Plaintiffs
Complaint
fails
to
disclose
what
defective
product
was
sold,
when
it
was
sold,
to
whom
it
was
sold
and
how
it
was
defective.
11.
Plaintiffs
Complaint
recites
numerous
conclusions
of
law
and
fact.
In
one
of
the
paragraphs,
the
Complaint
states
that
“It
is
reasonable
for
the
Court
to
assume
that
the
defendant
knows
the
effects
of
Crystaline
Silica
Dust
and
Quarry
Lime
on
the
Human
Body
as
well
as
its
own
Employees.”
That
statement
is
a
conclusion
not
supported
by
specific
facts.
12.
In
another
paragraph
of
the
Complaint,
it
implies
that
Defendant,
Nokomis
Quarry
Company,
has
committed
“Blatant
violations
of
(the)
Illinois
Administrative
Code.”
However,
that
allegation
is
a
conclusion
not
supported
by
specific
facts.
13.
Plaintiffs
Complaint
also
refers
to
“Unregulated
Emissions
from
Quarry
operations
are
poisoning
air
quality.”
That
statement
should
be
stricken
from
Plaintiffs
Complaint
inasmuch
as
it
is
a
conclusion
not
supported
by
specific
facts.
The
Complaint
also
refers
to
“the
Quarry
premises”
but
does
not
describe
with
specificity
the
particular
premises
referred
to
by
Plaintiff.
14.
Inasmuch
as
Plaintiffs
Complaint
is
based
on
numerous
conclusions
of
law
and
fact,
the
Complaint
should
be
dismissed
because
it
does
not
comply
with
Section
2-615
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
procedure.
15.
Plaintiffs
Complaint
also
requests
in
the
prayer
for
relief
money
damages
and
other
remedies.
No
specific
facts
are
pled
in
the
Complaint
which
support
Plaintiffs
requests
and
the
language
seeking
those
remedies
should
be
stricken
from
the
Complaint.
-4-
WHEREFORE,
the
Defendant,
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
requests
that
its
Motion
to
Dismiss
and
Strike
be
allowed
and
Plaintiffs
Complaint
be
dismissed
with
prejudice
and
the
Court
enter
any
other
relief
deemed
just
and
proper.
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
Defendant
SAMUELS,
MILLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
LLP
Zt2
One
of
Its
Attorneys
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
The
undersigned
hereby
certifies
that
on
the
9
th
day
of
November,
2007
he
served
a
copy
of
the
foregoing
Motion
to
Dismiss
by
Nokomis
Quarry
Company,
or
in
the
Alternative
Strike
Portions
of
the
Plaintiffs
Complaint
by
depositing
the
same
in
a
United
States
Post
Office
Box
enclosed
in
an
envelope
with
postage
fully
prepaid
upon
the
following:
Jerrald
R
West
II
P.O.
Box
181
Witt,
IL
62094
EDWARD
Q.
COSTA
SAMUELS,
MILLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
LLP
Attorneys
for
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
225
North
Water
Street,
Suite
301
P.
0.
Box
1400
Decatur,
IL
62525-1400
Telephone:
(217)
429-4325
STATE
OF
ILLiNOIS
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
TO:
Illinois
Circuit
Court
In
the
Matter
of:
Jerrald
R
West
II
{Plaintiff}
P.O,
Box
#181
Witt,
1162094
vs
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
23311
Taylorvile
road
EC
28
2007
Nokomis
Ii
62075
{
Defendant
#1
}
,..‘lARYWE
‘—Ircujf
4TH
JUdipCcIerk
COMPLAINT
Now
comes
Jerrald
R
West
II
{an
injured
party}
by
and
through
his
attorney
{Himself}
Requesting
a
Jury
Trial
at
which
time
civil
damages
REAL
and
ONGOING
shall
be
sought
by
preponderance
of
the
evidence
and
Established
FACT.
CAUSE
OF
ACTION
1.
This
Plaintiff
brings
this
action
Stating
“in
fact”
that
over
a
period
of
several
years
the
Defendant
has
sold
defective
Limestone
based
Road
product
which
has
caused
CUMMULATIVE
TOXIC
and
DRY
air
conditions
within
the
city
of
Witt,
and
Surrounding
geography.
Chip
rock
and
Road
Pack
on
Witt
City
streets
and
driveways
is
Aerosolizing
at
speeds
not
exceeding
25
mph
with
each
passing
vehicle.
As
well
Fugitive
particulate
limestone
matter
[air
pollution]
is
being
emitted
from
the
Defendants
premises
exactly
1.3
and
2.3
miles
North
of
Nokomis
on
Taylorville
Road
Approximately
4
Miles
from
my
home
with
the
permission
of
the
State.
NO
REAL
CONTAINMENT
and
processing
on
open
ground
with
particulates
smaller
thanthe
naked
eye
can
see
{<
10
Micrometers
in
diameter).
The
aforementioned
Airborne
Particles
have
and
are
causing
Chronic
Bronchitis,
Shortness
of
breath,
Pneumonia,
1
Gagging
from
dry
throat,
Hard
coughing,
Unconsciousness,
Pulled
muscles,
and
chrome
inflammation
with
ongoing
and
repeat
exposure.
Exhaustive
countermeasures
taken
have
as
well
served
to
oppress
this
Plaintiff
and
his
family.
2.
Let
it
be
established
in
fact
that
the
Additional
use
of
lime
by
Witt
Elevator,
Tracking
by
cars
and
trucks,
Incorporation
into
farm
soils
annually,
power
plant
emissions,
Harvest
activities,
Open
pile
Witt
City
rock
storage,
normal
variations
in
weather
and
wind,
Transportation
of
grain,
Hanson
Material
service
operating
next
door,
Individual
Indoor
Hygiene
practices,
all
obviously
play
a
role
in
this
individuals
acute
and
cumulative
exposure.
However,
it
appears
that
all
of
the
aforementioned
factors
have
a
PRIMARY
SOURCE.
3.
The
Defendant
is
regulated
Specifically
by
Ii
ADM,
Code
Title
#35
Specifically
part
212.301,
Il
EPA
act
at
[415
TLCS
5/1
et
secij,
and
US
EPA
62fr-38652
pmlO
designation,
yet
it
is
my
understanding
from
Dean
Hayden
an
official
of
the
IL
EPA
that
Nokomis
Quarry
has
been
issued
a
permit
to
pollute.
A
permit
is
in
direct
conflict
with
the
purposes
of
the
aforementioned
code,
Act,
and
Particulate
designation.
4.
It
is
beyond
belief
that
a
substance
known
to
behave
as
a
Coagulant
In
Paper,
a
Hardener
In
Concrete,
a
Dissolver
of
Dead
Bodies,
a
Bacteria
suppressant
in
Livestock
yards,
Neutralizer
of
Acid
in
soil,
an
Alkalinity
promoter,
Bonding
agent,
Extraction
agent,
Drying
agent,
Among
other
uses,
is
being
allowed
to
aerosolize
in
this
manner
with
what
appears
to
be
dysfunctional
regulatory
practices
at
the
state
level.
{See
source
data
section
for
supporting
materials}
5.
As
well
the
human
body
specifically
rEquires
unimpeded
fluid
and
gas
flows
to
properly
function.
After
cumulative
factoring
of
the
situation
based
on
Visible
arid
not
so
visible
concentrations
of
fme
particulates
and
duration
of
exposure
both
acute
and
long
term
with
and
without
countermeasures
this
plaintiffs
exposure
meets
or
exceeds
that
of
a
quarry
worker
“Involuntarily”.
Therefore
Remedy
Sought
6.This
Plamtiff
now
seeks
a
Civil
Jury
Trial
at
which
time
damages
in
the
amount
of
6,000,000
will
be
sought
for
the
Obvious
Degenerative,
systemic
and
acute
poisoning
inflicted
upon
this
Plaintiffs
body.
As
well
as
emotional
and
Financial
stresses
associated
with
at
least
5
“Known”
years
of
nearly
continuous
Exposure.
Amount
of
damages
sought
is
based
on
Real
damages
both
Economic
and
non
economic,
Laborious
exhaustive
countermeasures,
past
,
present,
and
future
health
concerns
as
well
as
individual
earnings
potential.
This
plaintiff
shall
rely
on
the
Juries
wisdom
based
on
the
evidence
in
determining
any
adjustments
to
the
aforementioned
amount
sought.
7.
Although
this
plaintiff
concedes
the
“original”
Complaint
filed
October,
26.
2007
was
somewhat
fragmented
in
form
its
Substance
was
very
clear
and
specific.
Therefore,
this
Plaintiff
has
prepared
this
Complaint
to
replace
the
original
filing
and
prays
the
court
finds
both
its
form
and
substance
suffient
to
allow
pre-
trial
Discovery
or
in
the
Alternative
allow
this
Complaint
to
stand
in
order
to
allow
this
Plaintiff
time
to
seek
Assistance
of
the
Attorney
General
as
recommended
by
the
Court.
8.
A
multi
agency
Complaint
has
as
well
been
made
to
the
Ii
EPA,
US
EPA,
MSHA,
NIH,
CDC,
and
Illinois
Attorney
General.
{Attached}
9.This
plaintiff
has
no
objections
to
the
court
taking
ample
time
to
thoroughly
explore
the
merits
of
this
case.
To
aid
in
this
exploration
Data
sources
and
Plaintiff
Credentials
have
been
provided.
(See
Attachrnents}
10.
Other
Discovery
marked
“Evidence
Submission”
in
original
complaint
remains
unchanged.
In
fact
More
issues
have
come
to
light
since
the
filing
of
the
original
complaint
regarding
agricultural
use
fineness
standards
and
source
of
materials
on
Witt
city
streets.
11.
It
Appears
based
on
conversation
with
the
Witt
City
clerk
the
City
uses
an
independent
contractor
Dooleys
Truck
Service
to
apply
the
rock
and
oil
to
the
streets
and
The
city
purchases
Rock
to
do
so
several
months
prior
to
application.
Rock
is
stored
in
open
piles
at
the
city
shed
til
such
time.
Also
the
City
of
Witt
Randomly
purchases
Rock
and
road
pack
from
both
Hanson
Material
Service
and
the
Nokomis
Quarry
Company,
based
on
price
and
availability
at
each
site.
Within
a
mile
of
each
other.
Therefore
12.
The
plamtiff
motions
the
court
to
acknowledge
shared
Responsibility
should
exist
for
emissions
at
each
site
and
conditions
specific
to
Witt
City
streets.
which
will
allow
for
this
complaint
to
be
consolidated
to
serve
as
complaint
to
both
parties.
A
separate
filing
is
needed
for
Hanson
Material
Service
Corporation
and
Possibly
General
Dynamics
Which
shall
be
completed
by
the
Plaintiff
Upon
Direction
of
the
Court.
13.
In
other
words
it
does
not
matter
to
this
plaintiff
if
all
parties
want
to
combine
resources.
This
would
save
everyone
involved
a
lot
of
time
and
money.
14.
Both
parties
practices
Appear
the
same
or
similar
and
both
sell
various
limestone
based
materials
randomly
to
the
City
of
Witt
from
earthen
material
mined
and
processed
from
a
proximity
within
a
mile
of
one
another
contributing
equally
to
cumulative
exposure
and
providing
defective
materials
which
are
of
a
Hazardous
fine
consistency
and
behave
in
a
dangerous
manner.
15.
Finally,
It
is
obvious
to
this
plaintiff
after
fully
reviewing
title
#35
that
a
rule
or
code
based
on
visible
Particulates
is
inadequate
in
judging
amount
emitted
by
the
pound.
Since
Limestone
has
varying
degrees
of
density
and
Weight
based
on
multiple
substances
commonly
found
in
Limestone,
and
High
quality
Aglime
which
has
a
particulate
size
smaller
than
the
naked
eye
can
see.
This
makes
for
a
false
sense
of
security
htng
to
cm”
iree
eoosme
and
buildups
ofpvices
iernainin
fugitive
on
the
earths
surface.
16.
This
Plaintiff
Prays
the
court
shall
find
this
case
has
merit
based
on
conditions
documented
at
both
sites
and
concerns
regarding
Cumulative
Exposure
when
Factoring
all
Sources.
17.
In
conclusion
this
Plaintiff
means
the
Defendants
no
undue
harm
in
bringing
these
proceedings
and
prays
the
defendants
will
change
the
aforementioned
processing
practices
and
resolve
housekeeping
issues
in
a
safer
manner.
Sincerely
Jerrald
R
West
II
P.O.
Box
#181
214
W
Mitchell
st
Witt,
IL
62094.
Attachment
A
Discovery
Disclosure
DATA
SOuRCES
VOLUNTARY
DISCLOSURE
Written
Material
Public
Record
18.
Illinois
blue
book
of
Government
1963-64,
Specifically
pg.
598
{Reflecting
85%
of
Illinois
surface
area
being
used
for
Agriculture
as
early
as
1963).
“Public
Record”
19.
2005-200611
handbook
of
Government
printed
by
the
authority
of
the
Secretary
of
State.
Specifically
pg.
60.
{Reflecting
the
current
established
purpose
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Agency}.
Specifically,
pg.
103
Article
I.
Bill
of
Rights,
see,
1.
Specifically,
pg.
105
Article
I.
see,
12.
“rights
toremedy
and
Justice.
20.
The
Lincoln
Library
of
Essential
Information
,
Frontier
Press,
Buffalo,
New
York.
1938.
{Self
Instruction
manual)
List
of
Contributors
and
Editors
pg.
12.
Specifically
Minerology
Science
section
beginning
on
pg.
896.
{Detailed
scope
of
purpose
{definitions
of
lime
and
Limestone
as
well
as
common
uses}
21.
Illinois
Limestone
Producers
program
Data
brochure
2007
from
DOA,
and
DOT.
Reflecting
participation
by
both
Qefendants.
{With
specific
Data
as
to
fineness
affecting
efficiency}.
Public
Records
Internet
22.
www.purchase.state.il.us/vendorinfo
Reflects
State
award
2006
for
aggregate
Defendant
1
Nokomis
Quarry
Company.
REF#
215005.
Contact:
Brent
Barns
785-1659.
To
verify
Defendants
relationship
with’
State
of
Illinois
Supporting
Written
Medical
Data
References
23.
Human
Physiology
College
Medical
Text,
Pierce
College.
Copyright,
1987.
Specifically,
pg.
31,
regarding
ph
level
in
human
body
and
role
of
Carbonic
acid.
Pg.
444
Regarding
Inflanunation,
Pulmonary
Fibrossis,
and
gas
exchange.
Pg.
572
Role
of
Liver
in
filtering
blood.
Pg.
453,
Effects
of
blood
Pco2
and
PH
onventilation.
24.
Lippincott
manual
of
nursing
practice
Copyright
1974.
Distributed
at
Oxford,
London,
Edinburg.
College
text
reflecting
relationship
with
Hyper
ParaThyroidism
and
Calcium
levels
relating
to
Kidney
stones.
25.
Encyclopedia
and
Dictionary
of
Medicine
and
nursing
By
Benjamin
F.
Miller
MD.
And
Claire
Brackman
Keane,
RN,
B.S.
Copyright
1972.
Reflects
various
uses
of
limestone
in
Medication
Compounds
and
Defines
Medical
condition
and
Symptomology.
Internet
Sources
26.
www.msha.gov
Mine
Safety
and
Health
Administration.
Position
that
Exposure
to
respirable
particles
10
Micrometers
or
less
can
overcome
bodies
natural
defenses.
Key
Search
Silicosis.
27.
www.il.gpy
Location
of
CERCLA
Data,
Specifically
Reporting
requirements
for
major
sources.
28.
www.atsdr.cdc.
gov
{Center
for
Environmental
health}
specifically
data
Relating
to
Dermal
Exposure,
Inhalation,
and
Oral
Exposure
of
Calcium
Fluoride.
Ph.
770-488-7000
29.
www.
cdc.
gov/niosh/pvfs/O2
-129
OSHA
Particulate
Exposure
limit
.05mg/rn
to
the
3
power
at
a
time
and
weight
average.
30.
www.niehs.gov
National
Institute
of
Environmental
Health
Sciences
has
posted
data
regarding
PM
2.5
Micrometers
“Short
term
exposure”
greatly
increases
risk
of
Heart
Disease.
As
well
Long
Term
Exposure
to
particulate
matter
<pmlO
exposure
is
strongly
associated
with
Ischemic
Heart
Disease,
Dysrhythmias,
{irregular
beat]
Heart
Failure
and
arrest.
George
Thurston,
Sc.D.
Phd.
Contact
Kimberly
Gray
919-541-5125
GOVERNMENT
DATA
SOURCES
Individuals
contacted
Supported
by
Affidavit
31.
Illinois
EPA
Employees
Dean
Hayden
{Supervisor}
Ph.
309-
693-5461,
Steve
Youngblood,
{Air
Division)
ph.
217-786-6329.
Laurie
Brinkmann
“Inspector”.
Status
Ongoing.
32.
US
EPA
Employees
Tinka
Hyde,
John
Summerhaze
{Particulate
Section)
Ph.
312-886-6067.
Stated:
“If
it
is
in
the
air
it
is
HAZARDOUS.
Brent
Marable
Enforcement
Investigator
US
EPA
has
and
is
investigating.
{Has
Viewed
some
Photography
only)
Status
ongoing.
33.
MSHA
Contact
with
Kevin
Legrand
{Supervisor}
8
15-223-
0697.
Disussed
situation
suggested
I
Consider
filing
Complaint
with
MSHA
at
website.
Informed
also
of
Material
data
safety
sheet
for
Limestone
which
Apparently
is
supposed
to
be
given
to
the
City
of
Witt
at
time
of
Material
purchase
Status
Ongoing.
These
are
sources
reviewed
or
conversations
conducted
within
last
60
days.
Limestone
Breakdown
Supporting
data
source
34www.
Wiicipedia.
corn
search
Key
Word
Lime
and
Limestone.
35.
Numerous
Dictionaries
Websters
Encyclopedia,
Medical,
and
Lincoln
Library
of
Essential
Information.
“Verifies
Industry
uses”
All
materials
can
be
made
available
to
the
Defendants
upon
request.
“Original”
Evidence
Submission
and
Extended
Exhibit
list
36.
Exhibit
1-7,
taken
afternoon
of
10/09/07,
Consisting
of
26
pictures
with
date
encodement
Reflecting
air
conditions
in
Witt,
Nokomis
proximity
in
one
65
minute
period.
37.
Exhibit
8,
reflecting
existence
of
white
rock
on
surface
of
Witt
city
streets.
On
or
prior
to
6/11/02
38.
Exhibit
9,
27
Pictures
taken
10/23/05
Begimiing
Just
after
Noon
Showing
various
air
conditions
in
and
around
Plaintiffswork
and
home
verifying
sample
collection.
39.Exhibit
10.
Randomly
timed
video
evidence
documenting
conditions
at
Quarry
and
Witt,
Nokomis
Proximity
Reflecting
air
conditions,
Real
emissions,
and
Physical
conditions
at
both
NokomisQuarry
Company
and
Material
Service
Corp.
Beginning
on
10/10/07
after
camera
purchase
to
ongoing.
Consists
of
no
less
than
3-
40
minute
DV
Tapes.
40.
Exhibit
11.
Copy
of
Title
#35
Guideline
Regarding
suspended
Particulate
matter,
Specifically,
212.30
1,
Subpart
K.
41.
Exhibit
12.
Actual
samples
from
Witt
City
Streets
collected
10/23/05
documented
and
supported
by
Picture
and
affidavit.
42.
Exhibit
13.
Sample
Suspended
in
water
with
control
sample
of
tap
water.
43.
Exhibit
14.
20”
by
30”
Limestone
industry
Breakdown
poster,
and
2
20”
by
30”
Picture
posters
from.
aforementioned
Exhibit
1-7
taken
10/9/07.
44.
Numerous
street
samples
documented
in
Exhibit
10
DV
tapes.
Note:
Evidence
collection
is
ongoing
I
(415
ILCS
5/3.115)
(was
415
ILCS
5/3.02)
Sec.
3.115.
Air
pollution.
“Air
pollution”
is.
the
presence
in
the
atmosphere
of
one
or
more
contaminants
in
sufficient
quantities
and
of
uch
characteristics
and
duration
as
tà
be
injurious
to
human,
plant,
or
animal
life,
to
health,
or
to
property,
or
to
unreasonably
interfere
with
the
enjoyment
of
lif&or
property.
(Source:
PA.
92—574,
eff.
6—26—02.)
(415
ILCS
5/3.120)
(was
415
ILCS
5/3.03)
Sec.
3.120.
Air
pollution
control
equipment.
‘FAir
pollution
control
equipment”
means
any
equipment
or
facility
of
a
type
intended
to
eliminate,
prevent,
reduce
or
control
the
emission
of
specified
air
contaminants
to
the
atmosphere.
equiprcientincludes,
but
isnot
limited
to,
landfill
gas
recovery
facilities.
(Source:
P.A.
92—574,
eff.
6—26—02.)
-
‘-I
(Source:
Amended
at
20
III.
Reg.7605,
effective
May
22,
1996)
Section
211209
Village
of
Win
netka
Generating
Station
(Repealed)
(Source:
Repealed
at
20111.
Reg.
7605,
effective
May
22,
1996)
Section
212.210
Emissions
Limitations
for
Certain
Fuel
Combustion
Emission
Units
Located
in
the
Vicinity
of
Granite
City
a)
No
person
shall
cause
or
allow
emissions
of
PM-I
0
into
the
atmosphere
to
exceed
12.9
ng/J
(0.03
lbs/mrnbtu)
of
heat
input
from
fuels
other
than
natural
gas
during
any
one
hour
period
from
any
industrial
fuel
combustion
emission
units,
other
than
in
an
integrated
iron
and
steel
plant,
located
in
the
vicinity
of
Granite
City,
which
area
is
defined
in
Section
2J2.324(a)([)(C)ofthisSubpart.
-
-
-
-
b)
Emission
units
shall
comply
with
the
emissions
limitations
of
this
Section
by
May
II,
1993,
or
upon
initial
start-up,
whichever
occurs
later.
(Source:
Amended
at
20
111.
Reg.7605,
effective
May
22,
1996)
SUBPART
K:
FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE
MATFER
Section
212.301
Fugitive
Particulate
Matter
No
person
shall
cause
or
allow
the
emission
of
fugitive
particulate
matter
from
a
including
tial
2
andlin
or
storage
activity,
that
is
visible
by
an
observer
looking
generally
toward
the
zenith
at
a
point
beyond
th
property
line
of
the
spure.
(Source:
Amended
at
20
Ill.
Reg.7605,
effective
May
22,
1996)
Section
212.302
Geographical
Areas
of
Application
a)
Seétions
212.304
through
212.3
10
and
212.312
of
this
Subpart
shall
apply
to
all
mining
operations
(SiC
major
groups
10
through
14),
manufacturing
operations
(SIC
major
groups
20
through
39
except
for
those
operations
subject
to
Subpart
S
of
this
Part
(Grain-Handling
and
Grain-Drying
Operations)
that
are
outside
the
areas
defined
in
Section
21
2.324(a)(
1)
of
this
Part),
and
electric
generating
operations
(SIC
group
491),
which
are
located
in
the
areas
defined
by
the
boundaries
of
the
following
townships,
notwithstanding
any
political
subdivisions
contained
therein,
as
the
township
boundaries
were
defined
on
October
1,
1979,
in
the
following
counties
Cook:
All
townships
I
if
1-i
State
of
Illinois
Rod
R
Blagojevich,
Governor
ej:
/7
9_—-
Department
of
Agriculture
t
lj
VharIes
Hartke,
Director
.IIIiAoisVoluntary
.
Limestone
Program
V
PRODUCER
INFORMATION
V
August
2007
Edition
•
Produced
by:
V
V
•
V
Illinois
Department
of
Agriculture
Illinois
Department
of
Transportation
I
-
--
1
•
illinois
Department
of
Agriculture
/7
The
application
of
limestone
to
iois
cropland
is
a
time
tested
method
controlling
soil
acidity.
It
can
help
aintain
optimum
nutrient,
availability
-d
consequently,
crop
production.
However,
variations
in
limestone
uality
from
the
many
sources
available
farmers
can
make
consistent
and
onomical
application
difficult
This
.blication
indexesmanylilinoissources
fagricuftural
limestone
as
a
function
of
?ireffective
neutralizing
value.
Calcium
rbonate
Equivalents
and
Ftneness
mciencyof
the
different
limestones
have
“been
figured
for
the
producer.
The
result
is
a
correction
factor
tthe
end
of
each
entry.
Multiply
this
qure
by
the
ton-per-acre
of
limestone
commended
in
your
soil
test
for
the
r-’rrect
application
rate
of
each
quarry’s
.stone.
Theappilcation
ratenumberisfigured
with
a
one
and
four
year
conversion
rate.
Figuring
ENV
for
one
year
conversion
rates
The
effective
neutralizing
value
of
a
limestone
product
is
determined
by
multiplying
the
Calcium
Carbonate
Equivalent
(CCE
given
in
booklet)
by
the
total
fineness
efficiency
value
(TFEV).
You
must
figure
this
from
data
included
in
the
booklet.
Total
fineness
efficiency
values
(TFEVs)
are
determined
byfirstobtaining
the
weight
percent
(multiply
by
.01)
of
stone
in
the
four
particle
size
interva’s.
-
seare:
i.
..reater
than
#8
mesh
2.
#8to
#30
mesh
3.
#30
to
#60
mesh
4.
#60
and
finer
mesh.
Obtain
the
greater
than
#8
mesh
figure
bysubtracting
the
#8
mesh
percent
weight
from
1.00,
to
obtain
the
#8
to
#30
mesh,
subtract
the
percent
passing
#
30
from
the
percertpassing
#8
to
obtainthe
#30
to
#60
figure,
subtract
the
#60
from
,the
#30.
The
passing
#60
figure
is
already
given
in
the
table.
Here
is
an
exampleTFEVcomputation
for
particle
size
intervals.
tepl
nes
County
Cr
Stone
)
ep2
Multiply
by
.01)
ep
3
•
.J0-.859
(#8
figure
for
#8
larger
particle
size)
=
.141
ep
4
,
One
Year
Conversion
Constants*
The
four
bold
constants
are
always
used
when
figuring
1
year
conversion
rates.
41
xS=.70
507
x
20=
10.14
138
x50=6.90
14
x
100=
21.4
39.14
=Total
Fineness
Efficiency
Value
ep
5
(TFEV)
39.14
x
(CCE)
.9363
=
36.65
(product)
ep
6
Always
divide
the
product
of
step
5
into
46.35.
One
Year
application
Rate
46.35
36.65
=
1.26
Step
7
26
x
(ton-per-acre
recommendation
in
your
soil
analysis)
=
ton-per-acre
of
Jones
County
Cr
Stone
to
apply.
Particle
Size
Interval
Analysis
Passing
Passing
Passing
#8
#30
#60
85.9
‘
35.2
21.4
Weight
Percent
.859
.352
.214
13
LIMESTONE
PRC
AM
PRODUCER
INFORMATION
-2OO
...
V
CORRECTION
‘OUNTY
CITY
STOCKPILE
OR
PASS
PASS
PASS
FACTORS
RODUCER
NAME
ADDRESS
LEDGE
LOCATION
CCE
MG
#8
#30
#60
1
YEAR
4
YEAR
i1ADISON
V
V
.BYQUARRY
ALTON
LDG
5,
26
87.40
V
3.00
67.8
29.5
20.7
1.54
1.50
31192-03
V
V
WFFCITYQUARRY
ALTON
LEDGE
I
&
2,75.1
89.77
0.72
84.6
44.0
30.9
1.11
1.16
(22.9
M).
COARSE
1192-02
SE.
EDGE
AGG
LIME.
HIGH
CAL
PELLET
LIME
ALTON
LEDGES
1
&
2,
84.67
0.41
100.0
100.0
100.0
V
0.55
0.80
75.1’
(22.9
M)
192-04
V
<IMATERIALS
GODFREY
VARIOUS
83.14
7.16
89.5
54.4
40.9
1.10
1.13
‘192-01
V
N.
MCDONOUGH
NTRAL
STONE
51092-03
TENNESSEE
3.5
MI.
S.
.ENARD
V
MATERIALSERVICE
ATHENS
COMBINED
81.68
1.31
88.6
43.2
30.8
1.22
1.26
‘
LEDGES
V
1292-02
4
MI.
N.
]ONROE
OLUMBIAQUARRY
COLUMBIA
LDG1-3A,
94.02
1.44
88.1
40.1
24.1
1.17
1.13
COARSE
AG.
LIME
632-01
2.5
MI.
N.E.
SAMPLE.
DLUMBIAQUARRY
WATERLOO
LDG
1-3,
COARSE
93.11
2.72
92.6
45.9
31.4
1.03
1.07
.
AG.
LIME
SAMPLE.
51332-04
3M1.E.
MONTGOMERY
.
TERIALSERVICE
NOKOMIS
COMBINED
91.77
0.59
100.0
98.8
91.6
0.53
0.74
LEDGES
352-04
3
MI.
NVWV
4ATERIALSERVICE
NOKOMIS
COMBINED
9111
060
83.4
35.6
22.8
128
124
LEDGES
352-01
3
MI.
N.
JOKOMIS
QUARRY
NOKOMIS
COMBINED
92.51
0.49
79.6
34.0
19.9
1.35
1.27
LEDGES
COARSE
‘352-03
4
MI.
N.
AGG.
LIME
)KOMIS
QUARRY
NOKOMIS
COMBINED
92.78
0.67
99.6
51.9
30.5
0.98
0.99
LEDGES
P
51O3___
I
DGLE
2...
SCHER
EXCAVATING
MONROE
0-12.2M,
N.
FACE
97.95
11.77
79.7
48.3
36.6
0.95
1.05
CENTER
.412-OO
2
MI.
N.
V
70’
LEDGE
87.79
2.50
54.6
37.4
0.98
90.7
1.06
9
Comprehensive
Multi
—
Agency
Environmental
Complaint
To:
IL
EPA,
US
EPA,
MSHA,
Illinois
Dept
Public
Health,
CDC,
NTH,
and
The
Illinois
Attorney
General.
From:
Jerrald
R
West
II
I
have
lived
in
Montgomery
County
in
the
City
of
Witt
since
1992.
Over
a
period
of
several
years
I
have
made
occasion
to
notice
an
increased
drying
effect
with
exposure
to
wind
and
weather.
As
well
Fugitive
Visible
Clouds
viewed
from
a
distance
are
not
readily
visible
from
within
the
cloud
itself.
These
clouds
exist
on
a
color
scale
of
white
to
blue/gray.
When
exposed
these
clouds
have
been
causing
a
drying
effect
in
my
lungs.
I
have
coughed
so
hard
that
I
have
lost
conciousness.
I
have
as
well
battled
numerous
respiratory
conditions
including
Pneumonia,
Chronic
Bronchitis,
Laryngitis,
and
Pluracy.
This
accompanied
with
Adrenal
responses
and
labored
breathing
from
acute
exposure.
It
is
clear
after
reviewing
tracking
processes
relating
to
wind,
weather,
Vehicles,
Humans,
Playing
children,
and
release
sources
that
Cumulative
regulation
is
non
existent
and
State
recources
limited.
After
carefully
FACTORING
and
DOCTJMENTING
these
conditions
based
on
Video,
Pictures,
Discussion
with
the
public,
Farmers
and
Limestone
Industry
workers,
Not
to
mention
100’s
of
hours
accumulating
Data
from
Government
sources,
Analysis
of
industry
Structure
and
scope
of
Enforcement/Industry
trends
as
well
as
simpleexperiments.
It
has
become
clear
that
“Simple
Public
Health
and
Environmental
based
issues
are
being
suppressed
through
the
systematic
focus
on
individual
Behavior,
and
Genetics
as
the
cause
for
all
Disease
completely
ignoring
Environmental
Factors.
Fact:
Miners
surface
and
underground
are
taught
Countermeasures
related
to
both
acute
and
Long
term
exposure
to
Mineral
Dusts.
OSHA
has
many,
duration
substance,
and
concentration
based
exposure
limits
for
workers
in
contained
factory
settings
yet
there
appears
to
be
no
containment
at
the
open
ground
Quarry
processing
sites
protecting
the
public
Specifically
1.3
and
2.3
miles
North
of
Nokomis
on
Taylorville
road
in
Montgomery
County.
The
scope
of
Limestones
use
in
industry
is
enormous
and
includes
Department
of
defense
contracts.
Responsible
handling
of
this
earthen
material
is
a
must.
Limestone
is
known
to
have
varying
degrees
of
numerous
substances
strictly
regulated.
As
well
limestone
can
have
varying
degrees
of
both
electrical
and
magnetic
behavior.
Keeping
these
facts
in
mind
how
can
anyone
justify
the
Preparation
of
Aglime
in
the
open
air
Year
after
Year
much
less
allow
the
Aerosolization
over
many
miles.
I
am
sure
this
is
great
for
Corn
and
the
cheapest
most
efficient
way
to
lime
a
field.
However,
the
carnage
and
human
suffering
Associated
with
Particulates
<Pm
10
being
released
is
of
a
broad,
acute
and
chronic
degenerative
nature.
Particles
which
settle
into
homes,
Limestone
based
city
streets
{Magnetic
Attraction},
Repeat
aerosolization
with
wind
and
weather,
and
foods
which
have
limestone
based
additives
and
minerals
are
Cumulatively
causing
a
number
of
repiratory
related
Ilnesses.
To
compound
this
situation
is
100+
years
of
use
in
farm
fields
and
Construction.
Recently
I
have
been
made
aware
of
a
move
in
the
agricultural
industry
toward
Pm
2.5
which
is
one
fourth
the
size
of
a
visible
particulate.
Given
the
current
Cumulative
situation,
flat
geography,
changing
weather,
and
the
desperate
pursuit
to
produce
cheap
ethanol,
It
is
CLEAR
somebody
needs
to
save
the
farmers
and
industry
from
themselves
and
everyone
else
from
Ignorant
practices
with
a
drying
agent.
In
other
words
if
Pm.
2.5
is
becoming
the
optimum
Liming
Particulate
size
it
Must
be
Mandatory
to
not
allow
even
small
amounts
to
enter
the
atmosphere
{Aerosalize}
at
any
part
of
the
process
unless
and
until
suspended
or
dissolved
in
a
liquid
base
with
proven
dissolution.
This
would
eliminate
the
apparent
temptation
to
apply
dry
to
save
money.
As
well
Simple
recapture
and
containment
equipment
at
the
mines
processing
sites
would
eliminate
the
Quarry
housekeeping
situation.
I
currently
possess
Approx.
3
months
worth
of
video
and
Pictures
from
this
year.
As
well
I
possess
pictures
and
Samples
from
2005.
I
have
been
trying
to
get
someone
from
the
Illinois
State
EPA
to
view
this
material
in
its
entirety.
So
far
to
no
avail.
I
make
this
complaint
do
to
the
oppressive
nature
of
this
situation,
Suffering,
And
exhaustive
countermeasures
needed
to
both
maintain
the
health
of
my
family
and
in
operation
of
my
fathers
family
business
{Furniture
store
}
which
was
located
on
rt#
16
next
to
Will
Elevator.
My
father
is
currently
making
plans
to
close
the
business
due
to
the
environmental
hijacking
which
appears
to
be
more
important
than
human
life.
My
father
was
going
to
turn
the
business
over
to
me
and
I
refused
due
to
this
situation
and
my
own
physical
diminishment.
As
well
my
wife
and
children
have
suffered
greatly.
I
have
become
extremely
dissatisfied
with
government
agencies
who
appear
to
be
victims
of
a
NARROW
ADMINISTRATIVE
FOCUS
themselves.
I
am
currently
considered
Disabled
and
cannot
find
a
lawyer
who
handles
this
type
of
case.
I
have
sought
remedy
from
the
US
EPA,
Ii
EPA,
ACLU,
The
Court
and
now
the
illinois
Attorney
General.
THIS
IS
AN
UNPRECEDENTED
VIOLATION
OF
EVERYONES
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
and
FREEDOMS
SET
FORTH
IN
THE
US
CONSTITUTION.
Finally,
I
now
appeal
to
the
Attorney
General
of
Illinois
to
assist
in
this
matter
to
protect
and
uphold
my
constitutional
rights
to
Remedy.
I
can’t
find
a
lawyer
to
handle
this
situation
nor
can
I
afford
too
pay
one.
Please
Contact
me
Sincerely
Slowly
Suffocating.
Jerrald
R
West
II
Ph.
217-594-7122
Attachment
B
CREDENTIALS
1.
From
the
Years
of
1985
til
1992
I
worked
as
a
Certified
Nursing
Assistant
in
the
Health
care
industry
in
both
skilled
and
Primary
care
setting,
assessment
abilities
were
of
utmost
importance
as
primary
link
to
Nurse
and
Physician..
{Transcript
available
upon
request)
2.
From
1993
til
recently
I
have
ran
my
fathers
business
on
and
off.
An
antique
and
used
furniture
store
called
First
Home
Furnishings.
My
father
buys
estates
and
sells
new
furniture
as
well.
3.
In
the
Fall
of
1994
I
returned
to
College
Working
toward
a
Counseling
certification
as
a
CADC
Counselor.
My
internship
was
at
C.R.C.
a
16
bed
residential
recovery
home
in
Irving,
II.
4.
After
completing
my
internship
12/96
I
was
Put
on
staff
as
a
resident
advisor,
shortly
thereafter
I
became
the
Executive
Director
under
the
Supervision
of
Dr.
Doug
Byers.
At
the
beginning
of
my
employment
the
Center
was
not
in
good
fmancial
shape.
Changes
at
the
federal
level
had
cut
off
some
funding.
My
duties
included
Writing
policy
and
procedure,
reporting
to
the
Board,
Developing
a
Quality
Assurance
Quality
control
Program
and
providing
statistical
data
to
the
state.
I
personally
wrote
policy
to
conform
with
Fed
Adrn
Rule
2030,
State
rule
2060
and
The
Americans
with
disabilities
act.
The
facility
ran
smoothly
for
more
than
2
years
with
an
astonishing
85%
recovery
rate.
Last
figures
for
1996
when
I
began
was
23%.
(Documented
with
Senator
Dernuzio}
5.
In
1998
I
Began
working
for
the
Gateway
Foundation
inside
Vandalia
Correctional
Center.
After
Approx.
3
Months
I
took
my
State
counseling
Exam
{MASTERS
LEVEL)
and
became
a
CADC
Counselor
First
Attempt..
My
duties
included
an
Individual
case
Load
of
20
inmates,
Assessment
and
Treatment
plan
creation
and
facilitation,
Conflict
Resolution,
with
3
hours
of
Group
therapy
with
45
inmates
daily.
My
Record
is
Exemplar.
One
grievance
filed
claiming
predjudice
against
white
people.
6.
I
Made
the
decision
to
leave
Gateway
because
I
was
still
working
at
C.R.C.
and
helping
my
father
as
necessary.
I
subsequently
resigned
from
Gateway
and
then
unplanned
C.R.C.
to
take
a
Job
atRidings
Xamis
in
Shelbyville.
7.
Not
long
after
starting
everyones
health
insurance
premiums
doubled
from
70$
a
week
to
$130.
I
then
wished
I
hadn’t
told
anyone
of
my
wifes
chronic
finess.
The
cold
environment
at
work
with
other
salesman
only
getting
$250
wk
was
not
real
bearable.
I
subsequently
quit
and
returned
to
work
at
my
fathers
Furniture
store
til
recently.
8.
I
Served
for
a
time
on
the
Board
of
Directors
at
C.R.C.
in
1999.
9.
Also
served
on
the
family
violence
counsel
for
Montgomery
County
in
1998
with
Lynn
Lanter,
and
Katherine
Dobrinic.
10.1
as
well
have
had
occasion
to
followup
and
have
frank
State
of
the
State
structure
based
discussion
with
Senator
Demuzio
after
his
initial
assistance
in
1997
which
I
still
feel
deeply
honored
to
have
been
able
to
participate
in
and
give
input
to
the
Senator.
11
.Therefore,
it
is
this
Plaintiffs
prayer
this
is
sufficient
in
establishing
level
of
expertise
and
broad
scope
of
abilities
which
includes
assessment
of
medical
conditions
and
Interests
in
behavioral
science
which
has
been
used
in
factoring
this
situation.
12.Finally,
It
really
gives
this
Plaintiff
no
pleasure
in
representing
Himself.
It
is
out
of
desperation,
and
Conservation
of
borrowable
money.
Sincerely
Jerrald
R
West
II
IN
THE
CIRCUIT
COURT
OF
THE
FOURTH
JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
FILED
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
JAN
222008
JERRALD
R
WEST
II,
)
Ciro’erk
)
4TH
Judicial
Circuit
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
NO.
07L-25
)
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,)
)
Defendant.
)
DEFENDANT’S
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT
FILED
DECEMBER
28,
2007
NOW
COMES
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
byits
attorneys,
Samuels,
Miller,
Schroeder,
Jackson
&
Sly,
LLP,
and
in
support
of
its
Motion
to
Dismiss
Plaintiffs
Complaint
filed
December
28,
2007,
says:
1.
This
Motion
is
made
pursuant
to
several
provisions
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
2.
Section
2-612
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
states,
in
part,
that
if
any
pleading
is
insufficient
in
substance
or
form
or
if
the
pleadings
do
not
sufficiently
define
the
issues,
the
Court
may
order
other
pleadings
prepared.
3.
Plaintiffs
Complaint
filed
December
28,
2007,
contains
17
numbered
paragraphs.
The
first
5
paragraphs
follow
the
caption
“Cause
of
Action”.
It
is
still
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
determine
what
cause
of
action
is
being
alleged
by
Plaintiff
in
the
amended
Complaint.
Paragraph
1
allegesthat
the
Defendant
may
have
sold
defective
limestone
based
road
product
causing
toxic
and
dry
air
conditions
within
the
City
of
Witt,
Illinois.
Paragraph
1
of
Plaintiffs
Complaint
also
may
-2-
allege
that
fugitive
particulate
limestone
matter
is
being
emitted
from
the
Defendant’s
premises.
Finally,
paragraph
1
may
allege
that
chip
rock
and
road
pack
on
streets
and
driveways
in
Witt
are
“aerosolizing”
causing
problems
to
the
Plaintiff.
However,
as
to
all
of
these
allegations,
the
Plaintiff
does
not
specifically
and
properly
state
a
claim
against
the
Defendant,
how
the
Plaintiff
was
exposed
to
any
of
the
problems
and
how
the
Defendant
was
involved
in
the
alleged
exposure
to
any
problems.
4.
It
is
also
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
determine
what
the
Plaintiff
is
alleging
in
paragraph
2
of
his
Complaint.
He
refers
to
the
City
of
Witt
storing
rock
and
transporting
grain.
He
refers
to
the
operations
of
Hanson
Material
Service.
However,
Plaintiff
does
not
allege
how
the
Defendant
was
involved
in
any
activities
and
why
the
Defendant
is
responsible
for
damages.
5.
Finally,
it
is
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
determine
what
actions
the
Plaintiff
is
complaining
about
in
paragraphs
3,
4
and
5
of
his
Complaint
and
how
the
Defendant
is
involved.
6.
Therefore,
Plaintiffs
Complaint
filed
December
28,
2007
should
be
dismissed
by
the
Court
because
it
does
not
comply
with
Section
2-612
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
7.
Section
2-613
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
states,
in
part,
that
parties
may
plead
asmanycauses
of
action
as
they
may
have.
However,
each
cause
of
action
shall
be
senarately
designated
and
numbered.
8.
In
this
case,
there
are
several
allegations
contained
in
paragraph
1
of
the
Plaintiffs
Complaint
(as
stated
above).
However,
Plaintiff
does
not
specifically
state
how
the
Defendant
was
negligent
in
this
case
concerning
each
of
the
allegations.
-3-
9.
If
the
Plaintiff
wants
to
plead
one
cause
of
action,
then
he
must
do
so.
If
the
Plaintiff
wants
to
plead
several
causes
of
action,
each
claim
must
be
separately
designated
and
numbered.
In
Plaintiffs
Complaint,
that
is
not
done.
10.
Therefore,
Plaintiffs
Complaint
filed
December
28,
2007
should
be
dismissed
by
the
Court
because
it
does
not
comply
with
Section
2-6
13
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
11.
Plaintiffs
Complaint
is
also
in
violation
of
Section
2-615
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
12.
The
allegations
of
Plaintiffs
Complaint
are
substantially
insufficient
in
law
in
that
the
pleading
fails
to
properly
state
a
cause
of
action.
Again,
it
is
difficult
to
detennine
what
Plaintiff
is
complaining
of(as
stated
above).
Specifically,
Plaintiffs
Complaint
fails
to
disclose
what,
if
any,
defective
product
was
sold,
when
it
was
sold,
to
whom
it
was
sold,
how
it
was
defective,
and
how
Plaintiff
has
been
damaged.
13.
Plaintiffs
Complaint
further
fails
to
properly
state
how
“fugitive
particulate
limestone
matter”
is
being
emitted
from
the
Defendant’s
premises
causing
damage
to
the
Plaintiff,
and
howthe
Defendant
is
negligent
because
chip
rock
and
road
pack
on
Witt
city
streets
and
driveways
is
allegedly
aerosolizing
causing
Plaintiff
damages.
14.
Plaintiffs
Complaint
contains
several
paragraphs
following
the
caption
“Remedy
Sought”.
Paragraphs
6
through
17
of
the
Complaint
recite
numerous
conclusions
of
law
and
fact.
Paragraph
11
of
the
Complaint
contains
several
conclusions
of
fact
which
should
be
stricken
from
-4-
the
Complaint.
Paragraph
11
also
refers
to
actions
by
the
City
of
Witt
and
a
company
named
Hanson
Material
Service.
15.
Paragraph
12
of
the
Complaint
refers
to
a
“separate
filing”
that
may
be
needed
for
Hanson
Material
Service
Corporation
and
General
Dynamics.
Paragraph
12
should
be
stricken
from
the
Complaint.
16.
Paragraph
14
contains
conclusions
of
fact
which
should
be
stricken
from
the
Complaint.
Finally,
paragraph
15
of
the
Complaint
contains
conclusions
of
law
which
should
be
stricken
from
the
Complaint.
17.
Therefore,
Plaintiffs
Complaint
filed
December
28,
2007
should
be
dismissed
by
the
Court
because
it
does
not
comply
with
Section
2-615
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
WHEREFORE,
the
Defendant,
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
requests
that
its
Motion
to
Dismiss
Plaintiffs
Complaint
Filed
December
28,
2007
be
allowed
and
Plaintiffs
Complaint
be
dismissed
with
prejudice
and
the
Court
enter
any
other
relief
deemed
just
and
proper.
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
Defendant
SAM[JELS,
MILLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
LLP
BY:
One
of
Its
Attorneys
-5-
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
The
undersigned
hereby
ceifies
that
on
the
day
of
Januar,
2008
he
seied
a
copy
of
the
foregoing
Defendant’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
Plaintiffs
Complaint
Filed
December
28,
2007
by
depositing
the
same
in
a
United
States
Post
Office
Box
enclosed
in
an
envelope
with
postage
fully
prepaid
upon
the
following:
Jerrald
RWest
II
P.
0.
Box
181
Witt,
IL
62094
;uit:càg)
EDWARD
Q.
COSTA
SAMIJELS,
MILLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
LLP
Attorneys
for
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
225
North
Water
Street,
Suite
301
P.
0.
Box
1400
Decatur,
IL
62525-1400
Telephone:
(217)
429-4325
)L’’
‘--
‘--‘
LI
I9
IO:Dbi
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
TO:
Illinois
Circuit
Court
In
the
Matter
of:
Jerrald
R
West
II
{Plaintiff)
P0.
Box
#181
Witt,
1162094
7-
L
-
2-5
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
MAR
10
2U98
23311
Taylon’ilIe
road
Nokomis,
11
62075
{
Defendant
#1)
MRYWE!3E
Gmiit
Co-t
C
erk
4TH
Judici&
Crcui
COMPLAINT
Now
comes
Jerrald
R
West
11
{an
injured
party)
by
and
through
his
attorney
(Himself)
Requesting
a
Jury
Trial
at
which
time
civil
damages
REAL
and
ONGOJNG
shall
be
sought
by
preponderance
of
the
evidence
and
Established
FACT.
CAUSE
OF
AcTION
lj,
1.
This
Plaintiff
brings
this
action
Stating
“in
fact”
that
over
a
period
of
,.
1
e’
several
years
the
Defendant
has
sold
defective
Limestone
based
Road
product
which
hs
caused
CTJMMULATIVE
TOXIC
and
DRY
air
conditions
within
the
city
of
Witt,
and
Suffounding
geography.
Chip
rock
and
Road
Pack
on
Witt
City
streets
and
driveways
is
Aerosolizing
at
speeds
not
exceeding
25
mph
with
each
passing
vehicle.
As
well
Fugitive
-
particulate
limestone
matter
[air
pollution]
is
being
cmitted
from
the
(/‘
Defendants
premises
exactly
1.3
and
2.3
miles
North
of
Nokomis
on
—
1’
TayIor’il1e
Road
Approximately
4
Miles
from
my
home
with
the
permission
of
the
State.
NO
REAL
CONTAINMENT
and
processing
on
open
ground
with
particulates
smaller
than
the
naked
eye
can
see
{<
10
Micrometers
in
diameter).
The
aforementioned
Airborne
Particles
have
and
are
causing
Chronic
Bronchitis,
Shortness
of
breath,
Pneumonia,
Gagging
from
dry
throat,
Hard
coughing,
Unconsciousness,
Pulled
muscles,
and
chronic
inflammation
with
ongoing
and
repeat
exposure.
Exhaustivecountermeasures
taken
have
as
well
served
to
oppress
this
Plaintiff
andhis
family.
2.
Let
it
be
established
in
fact
that
the
Additional
use
of
lime
by
Witt
Elevator,
Tracking
by
cars
and
trucks,
Incorporation
into
farm
soils
annually,
power
plant
emissions,
Harvest
activities,
Open
pile
Witt
City
rock
storage,
normal
variations
in
weather
and
wind,
Transportation
of
grain,
Hanson
MneriaI
service
operating
next
door,
Individual
Indoor
/
>
Hygienepractices,
all
obviously
play
a
role
in
this
individuals
acute
and
cumulative
exposure.
However,
it
appears
that
all
of
the
aforementioned
factors
have
a
PRIMARY
SOURCE.
3.
The
Defendant
is
regulated
Specifically
by
Ii
ADM,
Code
Title
#35
Specifically
part
2
12.301,
II
EPA
act
at
[415
LLCS
5/1
et
seq],
and
US
EPA
62fr-38652
prnlO
designation,
yet
it
is
my
understanding
from
Dean
Hayden
an
official
of
the
IL
EPA
that
Nokoniis
Quarry
has
been
issued
a
permit
to
pollute.
A
permit
is
in
direct_conflict
with
the
purposes
of
the
aforementioned
code,
Act,
and
Particulate
designation.
4.
it
is
beyond
belief
that
a
substance
known
to
behave
as
a
Coagulant
hi
Paper,
a
Hardener
In
Concrete,
a
Dissolver
of
Dead
Bodies,
a
Bacteria
suppressant
in
Livestock
yirds,
Neutralizer
of
Acid
in
soil,
an
Alkalinity
promoter,
Bonding
agent,
Extraction
agent.
Drying
agent,
Among
other
uses,
is
being
allowed
to
aerosoiize
in
this
manner
with
what
appears
to
be
dysfunctional
regulatory
practices
at
the
state
level.
{See
source
data
section
for
supporting
materials)
5.
As
well
the
human
body
specifically
requires
unimpeded
fluid
and
gas
flows
to
properly
fimction.
After
cumulative
factoring
of
the
situation
based
on
Visible
and
not
so
visible
concentrations
of
fine
particula.tes
and
duration
of
exposure
bothacute
and
long
term
with
and
without
countermeasures
this
plaintiffs
exposure
meets
or
exceeds
that
of
a
quarry
worker
“Involuntari
y”.
Therefore
-
Remedy
Sought
II\JJ)
J..
J
i
IL.
I
IUIN
UL.)
U.1.r\
L.LI’.
U.).
I
)JU
‘UJ.
I
U.
)O)J...)
.
‘.i’
C.
L
6.This
Plaintiff
now
seeks
a
Civil
Jury
Trial
at
which
time
damages
in
the
amount
of
6,000,000
will
be
sought
for
the
Obvious
Degenerative,
systemic
and
acute
poisoning
inflicted
upon
this
Plaintiffs
body.
As
well
as
emotional
and
Financial
stresses
associated
with
at
least
5
“Known”
years
of
nearly
continuous
Exposure.
Amount
of
damages
sought
is
based
on
Real
damages
both
Economic
and
non
economic,
Laborious
exhaustive
countermeasures,
past
,
present,
and
future
health
concerns
as
7
well
as
individual
earnings
potential.
This
plaintiff
shall
rely
on
the
Juries
wisdom
based
on
the
evidence
in
determining
any
adjusnents
to
the
aforementioned,
amount
sought.
7.
Although
this
plaintiff
concedes
the
“original”
Complaint
filed
October,
26.
2007
was
somewhat
fragmented
in
form
its
Substance
was
very
clear
and
specific..
Therefore,
this
Plaintiff
has
prepared
this
Complaint
to
replacethe
original
filing
and
prays
the
court
finds
both
its
form
and
substance
suffient
toallow
pre-
trial
Discovery
or
in
the
Alternative
allow
this
Complaint
to
stand
in
order
to
allow
this
Plaintiff
time
to
seek
Assistance
of
the
Attorney
General
as
recommended
by
the
Court.
8.
A
multi
agency
Complaint
has
as
well
been
made
to
the
II
EPA,
US
EPA,
MSHA,
NIH,
CDC,
and
Illinois
Attorney
General.
{Attached}
9.This
plaintiff
has
no
objections
to
the
court
taking
ampl€
time
to
thoroughly
explore
the
merits
of
this
case.
To
aid
in
this
exploration
Data
sources
and
Plaintiff
Credentials
have
been
provided.
(See
Attachments}
10.
Other
Discovery
marked
“
Evidence
Submission”
in
original
complaint
remains
unchanged.
In
fact
More
issues
have
come
to
light
since
the
tiling
of
the
original
complaint
regarding
agricultural
use
fineness
standards
and
source
of
materials
on
Wit
city
streets.
11.
Tt
Appears
based
on
conversation
with
the
Wit
City
clerk
the
City
uses
an
independent
contractor
Dooleys
Truk
Service
to
apply
the
rock
and
oil
to
the
streets
and
The
city
purchases
Rock
to
doso
several
months
prior
to
application.
Rock
is
store4
in
open
piles
at
the
city
shed
til
such
time.
Also
the
City
of
Wi
dØir
purchases
Rock
and
road
pack
)
.--.-—-—.
flH-1-Jb
Lb:i
rom:riuNi
LU
L1.
LUc
ir
bi
IO’4bjjj
from
both
1-lanson
Material
Service
and
the
Nokomis
Quarry
Company,
based
on
price
and
availability
at
each
site.
Within
a
mile
of
each
other.
There
fore
12.
1
would
like
to
make
the
court
Aware
of
“The
legend
of
BiHy
[Blue
Eye’s}
West,
My
Uncle,
He
spent
20
Years
in
the
Airforce
Went
to
College
on
the
01
Bill
{Rend
Lake
Mining
College}
and
graduated.
Then
took
ajob
as
a
school
bus
driver
for
17
years
instead
of
becominga___--
mInor
iy
ss
wiUessjust
eo
°ier
becoming
sick
i
w
as
weH
a
deep
cover
Asset
of
Senator
Oem
uzio
Who
had
me
investigating
the
agriculture
situation
which
he
feared
was
going
to
damage
the
Environment.
Every
Person
in
America
needs
to
understand
the
“REAL”
cause
for
Most
diseases
and
Disorders
now
days.
Greed
and
Stupidity.
-
See
My
uncle
Bill
Instructed
me
when
I
shot
my
first
rabbit
He
told
me
to
wait
for
my
best
shot.
I
did.
1
ran
with
the
rabbit
til
it
was
3ff
away
and
shot
it
in
the
Belly.
My
uncle
Bill
looked
at
me
and
said
“why
did
you
do
it
that
way?”.
My
response
was
I
shoot
it
in
the
Belly
so
it
would
already
be
gutted
and
There
wouldn’t
be
Any
“Lead”
shot
in
my
meat.
Uncle
Bill
then
Replied
“Son
Your
Not
Gonna
need
a
gun.”
Please
be
aware
an
Autopsy
is
—
pending.
13.
This
situation
has
gone
on
so
long
Rumsfeld
doesn’t
even
know
his
/“
driveway
is
probably
Poisoning
him
and
his
own
personal
biases
have
Jeopardized
a
blameless
president
and
our
national
security..
14.
Both
parties
practices
Appear
the
same
or
similar
arid
both
sell
various
limestone
based
materials
randomly
to
the
City
of
Witt
from
earthen
material
mined
and
processed
from
a
proximity
within
a
mile
of
one
another
contributing
equally
to
cumulative
exposure
and
providing
defective
materials
which
are
of
a
Hazardous
fine
consistency
and
behave
in
a
dangerous
manner.
15.
Finally,
It
is
obvious
to
this
plaintiff
after
fully
reviewing
title
#35
that
a
rule
or
code
based
on
visible
Particulates
is
inadequate
in
judging
amount
emitted
by
the
pound.
Since
Limestone
has
varying
degrees
of
density
and
Weight
based
on
multiple
substances
commonly
found
in
Limestone,
and
High.
quality
Aglime
which
has
a
particulate
size
smaller
than
the
naked
eye
can
see.
This
makes
for
a
false
sense
of
security
-
,
F
UTI.I
u
cu
L...rc
LL.r.
J.
I
Di
‘b1
To:945S313
-7
relatmg
to
cumulative
exposure
and
buildups
of
particles
remaining
fugitive
on
the
earths
surface.
16.
This
Plaintiff
Prays
the
court
shall
find
this
case
has
merit
based
in
human
rights
law.
17.
In
conclusion
this
Plaintiff
means
the
Defendants
no
undue
harm
in
bringing
these
proceedings
and
prays
the
defendants
will
change
the
aforementioned
processing
practices
and
resolve
housekeeping
issues
in
a
safer
manner.
Sincerely
.Jerrald
R
West
II
AKA
Narasimha
7
P.O.Box#181
214
W
Mitchell
st
Witt,
TL
62094.
FILED
APR
102008
MARY
WEBB
Circuit
Court
Clerk
IN
THE
CIRCUIT
COURT
OF
THE
FOURTH
JTJDICIAL
CIRCUIT
4TH
Judicial
Circuit
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
JERRALD
R
WEST
II,
)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
vs.
)
NO.
07-L-25
)
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY.
)
Defendant.
)
COMBINED
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT
FILED
MARCH
10,
2008
PURSUANT
TO
SECTION
2-619.1
OF
THE
ILLINOIS
CODE
OF
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
NOW
COMES
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
by
its
attorneys,
Samuels,
Miller,
Schroeder,
Jackson
&
Sly,
LLP,
and
in
support
of
its
Combined
Motion
to
Dismiss
Plaintiffs
Complaint
Filed
March
10,
2008
Pursuant
to
Section
2-6
19.1
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
states
the
following.
In
support
of
such
Motion,
the
Affidavit
of
Ronald
K.
Koehier
is
attached
hereto
and
incorporated
herein.
§2-615
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
1.
Plaintiff
has
filed
his
third
Complaint
and
this
is
the
third
Motion
to
Dismiss
filed
by
Nokornis
Quarry
Company.
It
appears
that
Plaintiff
is
alleging
a
single
cause
of
action
in
paragraph
1
of
his
new
Complaint
whereby
he
says
that
11
The
Defendant
has
sold
defective
Limestone
based
Road
product
which
has
caused
Cummulative
Toxic
and
Dry
air
conditions
within
the
city
of
Witt,
and
Surrounding
geography.”
However,
the
allegation
made
still
does
not
meet
the
pleading
requirements
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
-2-
Specifically,
Plaintiffs
allegation
fails
to
disclose
when
any
limestone
was
sold,
to
whom
it
was
sold,
how
it
was
defective,
and
how
the
Plaintiff
has
been
damaged.
Furthermore,
Plaintiffs
allegation
does
notspecifically
state
how
Nokomis
Quarry
Companywas
negligent
in
thjs
case.
2.
Paragraph
1
of
Plaintiffs
new
Complaint
also
contains
allegations
ofdamages
but
fails
to
disclose
whohas
been
damaged
and
what
person
or
entity
has
negligently
caused
the
alleged
damages.
Paragraph
1
of
Plaintiffs
new
Complaint
contains
other
statements
which
are
merely
conclusions
of
law
and
fact
which
should
be
stricken
from
his
Complaint.
3.
Paragraph
2
of
Plaintiffs
new
Complaint
contains
numerous
conclusions
of
law
and
fact
which
should
be
stricken
from
the
Complaint.
Furthermore,
none
of
the
allegations
in
paragraph
2
relate
to
Nokomis
Quarry
Company.
4.
Paragraph
3
of
Plaintiffs
new
Complaint
contains
numerous
conclusions
of
law
and
fact
which
should
be
stricken
from
the
Complaint.
Furthermore,
none
of
the
allegations
in
paragraph
3
refer
to
any
negligent
acts
of
Nokornis
Quarry
Company.
5.
Paragraphs
4
through
17
of
Plaintiffs
new
Complaint
contain
numerous
conclusions
of
law
and
fact
which
should
be
stricken
from
the
Complaint.
Furthermore,
none
of
the
allegations
in
paragraphs
4
through
17
relate
to
Nokomis
Quarry
Company.
WHEREFORE,
the
Defendant,
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
requests
that
this
Court
dismiss
Plaintiffs
Complaint
filed
March
10,
2008
and
award
Defendant
all
other
relief
the
Court
deems
proper.
-3-
SECTION
2-619
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
1.
Plaintiff
filed
his
original
Complaint
on
October
26,
2007.
Tn
his
new
pleading,
Plaintiff
is
alleging
that
over
a
period
of
several
years
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
sold
defectivelimestone
(rock)
to
the
City
of
Witt,
Illinois
and
he
has
been
damaged.
2.
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
has
sold
two
loads
ofrockto
the
City
of
Witt
since
2002.
One
of
the
loads
was
sold
on
July
9:2007
and
the
second
load
of
rock
was
sold
to
the
City
of
Witt
on
July
10,
2007.
(See
Affidavit
of
Ronald
K.
Koehier.)
3.
In
July,
2007
the
rock
soldby
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
was
tested
and
inspected
both
before
and
after
it
was
shipped
to
the
City
of
Witt,
Illinois.
The
Quarry’s
rock
met
specifications
set
by
the
Illinois
Department
of
Transportation
and
it
was
not
defective.
4.
Contrary
to
Plaintiffs
allegation
that
defective
limestone
(rock)
was
sold
to
the
City
of
Witt,
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
can
show
that
the
rock
soldin
July,
2007
was
not
defective.
Furthermore,
the
Quarryhas
never
sold
rock
to
the
Witt
Elevator
contrary
to
any
implication
made
in
Plaintiffs
new
Complaint
that
sales
did
occur.
As
such,
Plaintiff
cannot
prove
a
cause
of
action
against
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
based
on
the
sale
of
defective
limestone
(rock).
WHEREFORE,
the
Defendant,
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
requests
that
this
Court
dismiss
Plaintiffs
Complaint
filed
March
10,
2008
and
award
Defendant
all
other
relief
the
Court
deems
proper.
-4-
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
Defendant
SAMUELS,
MLLLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
LLP
BY:
One
of
fts
Attol-neys
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
The
undersied
hereby
ceifies
that
on
the
day
of
April,
2008
he
sewed
a
copy
of
the
foregoing
Notice
of
Hearing
by
depositing
the
same
in
a
United
States
Post
Office
Boxenclosed
in
an
envelope
with
postage
fully
prepaid
upon
the
following:
Jenald
R
West
II
P.
0.
Box
181
Witt,
IL
62094
EDWARD
Q.
COSTA
SAMUELS,
MILLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
LLP
Attorneys
for
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
225
North
Water,
Suite
301
P.
0.
Box
1400
Decatur,
Illinois
62525-1400
Telephone:
(217)
429-4325
iN
THE
CIRCUIT
COURT
OF
THE
FOURTH
JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
JERRALD
R
WEST
II,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
-
)
vs.
)
NO.
O7L-25
)
OKOMJS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
)
Defendant.
)
:AIF1DAV1T:*
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
)
)SS.
COUNTY
OF
MONTGOMERY
)
RONALD
IC.
KOEHLER,
having
been
duly
sworn
on
oath
deposes
and
states
as
follows:
1.
1
am
the
General
ManagerQfNokomis
Quarry
Company
and
am
authorized
to
make
this
Affidavit.
I
am
familiar
with
the
books
and
records
of
Nokomis
Quaity
Company
and
also
familiar
with
the
allegations
contained
iti
êJläWuit
entitled
Jerrald
1?.
West
11,
P1aintff
vs.
Nokomis
Quariy
Company,
Defendant,
pending
in
Montgomeiy
County,
illinois
as
Case
No.
07-L-25.
2.
Nokornis
Quarry
Company
has
sold
only
two
loads
of
rock
to
the
City
of
Witt,
Illinois
since
2002.
One
of
the
loads
of
rock
was
sold
on
July
9,
2007
and
the
second
load
of
rock
was
sold
to
the
City
of
WiU,
illinois
on
July
I
0
2007.
Attached
to
this
Affidavit
and
marked
Exhibit
“A”
are
copies
of
Scale
Tickets
issued
by
Nokornis
Quarry
Company
documenting
each
sale
of
rock.
-2-
3.
During
July,
2007
and
at
times
before
and
after
that
time
period,
the
rock
sold
by
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
was
inspected
on
a
regular
basis.
The
inspections
were
performed
by
an
independent
consultant
hired
by
Nokomis
Quarry
Company.
4.
Xnspection
tests
were
performed
each
week.
The
testing
consisted
of
drying
and
screening
rock
to
insure
that
the
rock
meets
with
State
specifications
according
to
a
sieve
analysis
outhned
by
the
flhinois
Department
of
Transportation.
5
Inspection
tests
were
run
on
rock
at
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
on
July
3,
2007
and
July
10,
2007.
After
the
tests
were
performed,
the
rock
was
marked
“Approved”
by
the
inspector
meaning
the
rock
met
Illinois
Department
of
Transportation.
quality
specifications
and
that
Nokomis
Quarry
Companycould
sell
its
product
as
advertised.
Attached
to
this
Affidavit
and
marked
Exhibit
“B”
are
copies
of
the
7/3/07
and
7/10/07
inspection
test
results.
6.
At
the
time
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
sold
the
two
loads
of
rock
to
the
City
of
Witt,
Illinois
on
July
9,
2007
and
July
10,
2007,
its
rock
met
the
quality
specifications
set
by
the
Illinois
Department
of
Transportation
and
it
was
not
defective.
7.
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
has
never
sold
any
rock
to
the
Witt
Elevator.
FURTHER
AFFIANT
S
ATTN
NOT.
RON
0
K.
KOEH
ER
Subscribed
and
sworn
to
before
me
this
4/
day
of
April,
2008.
Notary
Publià
“OFFICIAL
SEAL”
1F
D8BIE
LYNNE
RHODES
COMMISSION
EXPIRES
O4/04/O9
VVVV
VYV-VY....ZZZX.ZY
VT
V
V
EXHIBIT
A
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
Phone
(217k
563-2011
AU
Types
of
Crushed
Stone
-AgriculturcilLime
P.O.
Bo
90
Nokonus,
IllinoIs
62075
BELL
TO:
CITYWI
CITY
OF
LJITT
PO.
BOX
374
JITT
IL
E2094
SCALE
TICKET
Date
Ticket
Time
OP
7/@CI,?’7
DLIL?
HAULED
BY:
ULL04
BULLDOG
ENTERPRISES
INC
1.JITT,.
IL
GROSS
TARE
NET
73,
300
31.,
500
41.,
D00
.
8IGNA1WE
DATE
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
Phone
(217)
563-2011
SCALE
TICKET
AU
Types
of
Crushed
Stone
-
Agricultural
Lime
P.O.
Eo
90
Nokonais,
ILlinois
62075
Date
Ticket
Time
OP
7/10/07
5B872
6:27
CT
BILL
TO:
CITYWI
HAULED
BY:
BULLO4
CITY
OF
WITT
BULLDOG
ENTERPRISES
INC
P.O.
BOX
374
WITT
IL
WITT
IL
(‘209”
JOB/DEST:
GROSS
74,200
TARE
Driver:
BOB
MATERIAL
NQPS
#51352-03
QTY
UNiT
PRICE
AMOUNT
15
t/2”
CHIPS
(SPECI$L)
21.3500
ON
9.5000
202.83
CASK
CBRG
MFT
TAX
RESALE
.
x
TOTAL
202.
83
JOB/DEST:
Driver:
BOB
MATERIAL
NQPS
#51352-03
QTY
UI’IIT
PRICE
AMOUNT
:fl15
1/3’
CHIPS
(SPECIflL)
20.
9000
ON
.
5000
19E.
55
CASH
CIIRO
MFI’
TAX
RESALE
X
TOTAL
198.55
“t’!’
Sri
(•T?
ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT
OF
1’RANSPORTATION
AGGREGATE
GRADATION
REPORT
Hi;;i
J
Agency:
0
Copies
to’
lAaterlals
Inspector
Dati
District
MteriaIs
Producer
Inspector
No
960000000
Inspector
Name
Producer
Sampled
Date
Sampled:
070307
Sequence
No:
097
MIX
Plant
No
Name:
Contract
No:
Job
No:
Responsible
icc:
95
Lab:
Dl
Lab
Name:
1?
Source
Name:
Nokoniis
Querry
W0URc
MATL
fE.TYPE
f
ORIGINAL
J
SPEC
ART
SAMPLED
FROM
:
WASH
I:’.
.
CODE
INSP
.
ID
.
‘
.
DRY
L535-0
032CM16
LRO
[
J
STAND
1004
PR
LL
W
CM:
.114
252
1.75.
jl.5
1.
314
/8
112
318
.#4
#
.
#16
13O
#50’
‘#100
#200
E
I
1001
94
26
j
f
1.5
LWASH
200
PioRgtl
RESUL
1.
REMARK
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
V
8312
.4PPR
1J
mm
1.75
1.75
8200
1.5
1.5
6800
1
1
4500
Cumul,
Wi
Retain
3/4
Pot’
Pass
CUmul.
Rebin
Spec.
Range
3400
5!8
SIB
1/2
1/2
3/8
1/4
1/4
12
lndtv,
Sieve
V’:
WI
0
Load
RetaIn
2.5
11600
11600
2
2
.‘
9100
,
2900
2200
0.0
1700
98.4
‘1000
639.3
860
428.5
450
35.7
450
5.2
450
.450
450
450
-
450
,
7.
4.0
15.5
1154(5.4
20.1
#4
#8
#18
#30
#40
#16
4.
#30.
11)0,0
93.7
52.9
25.7
#50
100
94-100
24-40
#100
450
!WORKAREA
In/Out
Overload
#10.0,
#200
0,0
98.4
6.3
737.7
471
1104.2
74.3
1529.9
97.7
1535.1
98.0
15469
#20b
0-8
2.3
2.0
1.5
f)ryWt.
--
otal
Wésh
WI
DIff(.-2d0
[200I#4O):
--
V•Z
E’ii
1%Waed.:?PQ
—a——
(Mix
Plant
Only)
r
Lot:
L
SIn:
ValIdity
Cheek
OK
/FOR
DTYOS5O4
MISO4GC
Version
8.0
Master
Sand
Target:
Thclvlrisp:
0
32
Tested
Gy:
01ST
6
-‘
--V..-
Sl9nature
03/18198
Thi
Is
a
Field/Laboratory
Heport
for
MISTIC
Input)
ijif,,s
mCI’I
‘Jr
I
rNSI’OI1
Ifl
lION
AGGREGATE
GRADATION
REPORT
Misik
lu
Validity
Check
Ok
IFOR
13TY03504
-
—
M160400
Jersion
5.0
03/18/90
(ispeclor
No
flR0000000
inspector
Name:
Prdticer
Smpied
Date
Sampled:
071007
-
SeciLInce
No:
100
(Mix
Plant
No
Name
Cont,act
No;
Job
ND.
ResponeIbIe
Lee;
-
fl
t.ab:
Di
Lab
Name:
7?
Source
Name:
Nol<nniie
Qurnry
--
[S0URC
MAIL
t’’PE
ORIGINAL
J
SPEC
ART
SAMPLED
FROM
WASI-i
L
.4
CODE
NSP
ID
DRY
[352.4
032CM16
PRO
STAND
1004
SP
ilL
W
—
MTilr2.s
.i—
5/8
112
318
114
iè
6
pl
—]
[
1
[
27
3
2
1.
J
i.
7
WASH
200
(P1
or
RIl
RESULT
REMARK
14782
J[
APPR
o
mm
Sieve
1z,
IDver
Load
a
11600
1.5
1.75
2
—
mdlv,
WI.
Retain
11600
8200
0100
6800
3400
4500
2.5
2
518
3/4
1.5
1.75
1)2
318
114
#4
*16
*8
*30
*100
#50
40
#200
In/Out
Cumul,
Cumul.
%
Retain
Retain
0.0
69.8
69.8
41
—.
021.0
690.8
42.7
483.3
1174.1
-
72.6
393.5
1567.6
97.0
10.7
15783
97.5
10.4
1568.7
9113
4.1
1592.8
1616.8
V
-
-
1592.9
Pet
100.0
Pass
27.4
57.3
95:7
1.7
2.4
6/5
2900
1/2
1700
2200
1/4
1000
*4
450
50
10
450
*30
#40
450
-
450
*200
450
Pin
otl
Dry
Wt.
àtal
Wash
JI.
OI(20i.
Spec,
Range
%Pass
100
0-8
24-40
94-100
32
IWORI<.AREAJ
Overload
0il:INatWght.
Ogrnn{Moiture%:
L..
PI!_
(%Wasö:
(Mix
Plant
Only)
Let:
Rin:
Tech/Insp:
0
Tested
fly:
01ST
6
Agency:
a
Master
Band
Target:
(This
is
a
FieldILaboraory
Raport
icr
MISTIC
Input)
t)
Copies
to:
Materials
inspector
Da
Osirict
Materials
Producer
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
TO:
Illinois
Circuit
Court
In
the
Matter
of:
Jerrald
R
West
II
{Plaintiff}
*7
P.O.
Box
#181
Witt,
Ii
62094
vs
No
komis
Quarr,
Comoariv
231
I
I?j
O
1[’
3
L
JLLU,
Nokomis,
Ii
62075
{
Defendant
#1
}
MAY
12
2008
MARY
WEBB
,cutt
ç
9
ud
Clerk
-t
ii
Judicja
Circuit
COMPLAINT
Now
comes
Jerrald
R
West
II
{an
injured
party}
by
and
through
his
attorney
{Himself}
Requesting
a
Jury
Trial
at
which
time
civil
damages
REAL
and
ONGOING
shall
be
sought
by
preponderance
of
the
evidence
and
Established
FACT.
CAUSE
OF
ACTION
1.
This
Plaintiff
brings
this
action
Stating
“in
fact”
that
over
a
several
years
the
Defendant
has
solddefective
Limestone
based)
7
product
which
has
caused
CIJMMULATWE
TOXIC
and
DRY
air
conditions
within
the
city
of
Witt,
and
Surrounding
geography.
Chip
rock
and
Road
Pack
on
Witt
City
streets
and
driveways
is
Aerosolizing
at
speeds
not
exceeding
25
mph
with
each
passing
vehicle.
As
well
Fugitive
particulate
limestone
matter
[air
pollutionj
is
being
emitted
from
the
Defendants
premises
exactly
1.3
and
2.3
miles
North
of
Nokomis
on
Taylorville
Road
Approximately
4
Miles
from
my
home
with
the
permission
of
the
State.
NO
REAL
CONTAINMENT
and
processing
on
open
ground
with
particulates
smaller
than
the
naked
eye
can
see
{<
10
Micrometers
in
diameter}.
The
aforementioned
Airborne
Particles
have
and
are
causing
Chronic
Bronchitis,
Shortness
of
breath,
Pneumonia,
Dvy
throat,
Hard
coughing,
Unconsciousness,
Pulled
muscles,
and
chronic
systemic
inflammation
with
ongoing
and
repeat
exposure.
Exhaustive
countermeasures
taken
have
as
well
served
to
oppress
this
Plaintiff
and
his
family.
2.
Let
it
be
established
in
fact
that
the
Additional
use
of
lime
by
Will
Elevator,
Tracking
by
cars
and
trucks,
Incorporation
into
farm
soils
annually,
power
plant
emissions,
Harvest
activities,
Open
pile
Will
City
rock
storage,
normal
variations
in
weather
and
wind,
Transportation
of
grain,
Hanson
Material
service
operating
next
door,
Individual
Indoor
Hyniene
practices.
a!!
obuiousiv
pia’
a
icie
individuals
acute
and
cumulative
exposure.
However,
it
appears
that
all
of
the
aforementioned
factors
have
a
PRIMARY
SOURCE.
3.
The
Defendant
is
unregulated
Specifically
by
the
Ignoring
of
Ii
ADM,
Code
Title
#35
Specifically
part
212.301,
11
EPA
act
at
[415
ILCS
5/1
et
seq],
and
US
EPA
62fr-3
8652
pmlO
designation,
yet
it
is
my
understanding
from
Dean
Hayden
an
official
of
the
IL
EPA
that
Nokomis
Quarry
has
been
issued
a
“PAID”
permit
to
pollute.
A
permit
is
in
direct
conflict
with
the
purposes
of
the
aforementioned
code,
Act,
and
Particulate
designation.
In
Fact
Limestone
often
contains
varying
levels’s
of
radon,
Arsenic,
Magnesium,
Lead,
Mercury,
Silica,
and
Other
substances
apparently
unregulated.
These
substances
use
particles
like
a
vehicle
when
present
and
can
become
reactive
precipitating
gases
in
direct
sun.
Be
aware
Lime
is
often
used
as
a
vehicle
in
agriculture
to
effect
multiple
purpose
application
thus
saving
money.
The
defendant
Makes
this
product
which
is
processed
on
the
open
ground
“Without
Containment”
In
Fact
Aglime
often
has
Pesticides
such
as
nicotine{As
reported
by
CBS},
Herbicides,
Nitrogen,
etc.
In
addition
to
these
facts.
Limestone
is
also
harvested
for
mineral
fillers
in
many
many
foods.
Seemingly
small
amounts
can
be
very
heavy.
Great
for
food
sales
which
is
often
measured
by
the
pound
or
Ounce.
4.
It
is
beyond
belief
that
a
substance
known
to
behave
as
a
Coagulant
In
Paper,
a
Hardener
In
Concrete,
a
Dissolver
of
Dead
Bodies
by
accelerated
Dehydration,
a
Bacteria
suppressant
in
Livestock
yards,
Neutralizer
of
Acid
in
soil,
an
Alkalinity
promoter,
Bonding
agent,
Extraction
agent,
Drying
agent,
Among
other
uses,
is
being
allowed
to
aerosolize
in
this
manner
with
what
appears
to
be
dysfunctional
regulatory
practices
at
the
state
level.
Please
be
aware
in
fact
Limestone
often
has
varying
Magnetic
and
Electrical
Behavior
based
on
random
individual
stones
which
naturally
accur
and
are
sometimes
more
suited
for
metal
preparation,
Example
“Alumina”
{
See
source
data
section
for
supporting
materials}
5.
As
well
in
fact
the
human
body
specifically
requires
unimpeded
fluid
and
gas
flows
to
properly
function
as
well
as
cardiovascular
and
Pulmonary
Elasticity.
After
cumulative
factoring
of
the
situation
based
on
Visible
and
not
so
visible
concentrations
of
fine
particulates
and
duration
of
exposure
both
acute
and
long
term
with
and
without
countermeasures
this
plaintiffs
exposure
meets
or
exceeds
thai
of
a
quarry
worker
“Involuntarily”.
Pleadings
6.
This
plaintiff
can
give
a
very
efficient
presentation
at
his
own
peril
based
in
fact
and
supported
by
“Definition”
of
a
single
statute.
As
Follows:
{415
ILCS
5/3.115)
{was
415
ILCS
5/3.02)
Sec.
3.115
Air
Pollution.
“Air
Pollution”
is
the
presents
in
the
atmosphere
of
one
or
more
contaminants
in
sufficient
quantities
and
of
such
characteristics
and
duration
as
to
be
injurious
to
human,
plant,
or
animal
life,
to
health
or
to
property,
or
to
unreasonably
interfere
with
the
enjoyment
of
life
or
property.
Source:{
P.A.
92-574,
eff.
6-26-02.)
Est
Presentation
time:
1.5
Hours
This
will
include
industry
overviews,
video
of
actual
conditions,
Education,
and
Physical
examination
of
the
road
materials
by
the
Jury.
This
Plaintiff
needs
to
present
no
supporting
case
law
since
this
product
is
obviously
being
handled
carelessly
without
real
regulation.
Therefore
all
Limestone
based
products
have
been
rendered
defective
do
to
repeated
tracking
mechanisms
and
scope
of
regulated
substances
found
in
or
added
to
limestone
based
products.
Therefore
Remedy
Sought
7.This
Plaintiff
now
seeks
a
Civil
Jury
Trial
at
which
time
damages
in
the
amount
of
6,000,000
will
be
sought
for
the
Obvious
Degenerative,
systemic
and
acute
poisoning
inflicted
upon
this
Plaintiffs
body.
As
well
as
emotional
and
Financial
stresses
associated
with
at
least
5
“Known”
years
of
nearly
continuous
Exposure.
Amount
of
damages
sought
is
based
on
Real
damages
both
Economic
and
non
economic,
Laborious
exhaustive
countermeasures,
past
,
present,
and
future
health
concerns
as
well
as
individual
earnings
potential.
This
plaintiff
shall
rely
on
the
Juries
wisdom
based
on
the
evidence
in
determining
any
adjustments
to
the
aforementioned
amount
sought.
Interrogatories
8.
I
have
few
questions
for
the
Defendant
other
than:
a.Since
much
of
our
food
supply
has
tested
positive
in
the
past
for
pesticides.
Does
the
defendant
process
and
sell
both
aglime,
and
mineral
filler
for
food
at
the
same
site?
b.
Does
the
Defendant
know
the
historical
disease
rates
amoung
quarry
workers.
c.
Has
the
defendant
mined
materials
better
suited
for
metallic
purposes
from
this
same
site
in
the
past.
d.
What
does
the
Defendant
believe
to
be
the
most
inexpensiveway
to
apply
lime
to
its
corn
fields
across
the
Roadway?
9.This
plaintiff
has
no
objections
to
the
court
compelling
the
defendant
to
answer
these
questions
within
the
time
frame
afforded
by
the
Illinois
code
of
Civil
procedure.
Based
on
public
health
concerns
and
lack
of
regulatory
protection.
10.
In
fact
This
Plaintiff
has
been
very
patient
and
deliberate,
providing
much
of
the
case
to
the
defendant
for
review.
Alternatives
totrial
have
been
provided
to
the
Defendant.
11.
This
plaintiff
now
prays
and
Motions
the
court
will
schedule
a
hearing
of
discovery
at
which
time
this
Plaintiff
shall
givethe
full
presentation
based
in
Verifiable
fact.
To
afford
time
for
the
Defense
to
argue
any
denial
of
reality
they
may
still
be
harboring.
12.
Finally,
It
is
obvious
to
this
plaintiff
after
fuiiy
reviewing
title
#35
that
a
rule
or
code
based
on
visible
Particulates
is
inadequate
in
judging
amount
emitted
by
the
pound.
Since
Limestone
has
varying
degrees
of
density
and
Weight
based
on
multiple
substances
commonly
found
in
Limestone,
and
High
quality
Aglime
which
has
a
particulate
size
smaller
tba
tLD
]c
c
see
Fhs
1]
a
4
ase
relating
to
cumulative
exposure
and
buildups
of
particles
remaining
fugitive
on
the
earths
surface
which
re
aerosolize
when
disturbed.
The
American
people
deserve
better.
13.
In
conclusion
this
Plaintiff
means
the
Defendants
no
undue
harm
in
bringing
these
proceedings
and
prays
the
defendants
will
change
the
aforementioned
processing
practices
and
resolve
housekeeping
issues
in
a
safer
manner.
As
well
My
1,000’s
of
pages
of
data
are
organized
from
government
sources
and
Affidavits
are
Prepared.
Sincerely
4
JerraldRWestll
O3
//O5
P.O.Box#181
/
214
W
Mitchell
St
Witt,
IL
62094.
6,
IN
THE
CIRCUIT
COURT
OF
THE
FOURTH
JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
JERRALD
R
WEST
II
)
FILED
)
JUNG—2008
Plaintiff,
)
)
MARY
WEBB
Circuit
Court
Clerk
vs.
)
NO.
07-L-25
4TH
Judicial
Circuit
)
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,)
DEFENDANT’S
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT
FILED
MAY
12,
2008
NOW
COMES
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
by
its
attorneys,
Samuels,
Miller,
Schroeder,
Jackson
&
Sly,
LLP,
and
in
support
of
its
Motion
to
Dismiss
Plaintiffs
Complaint
Filed
May
12,
2008,
states
the
following:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
has
now
filed
his
fourth
Complaint
and
this
is
the
fourth
Motion
to
Dismiss
presented
by
Nokomis
Quarry
Company.
At
the
three
previous
Motion
hearings
(each
time
Plaintiffs
Complaint
was
dismissed),
Plaintiff
was
cautioned
to
either
hire
an
attorney
to
represent
him
or
file
an
appropriate
pleading
which
could
state
a
cause
of
action.
The
Court
has
on
three
occasions
indicated
to
the
Plaintiff
that
he
may
not
get
another
opportunity
to
file
an
amended
claim
because
his
pleadings
are
on
the
verge
of
harassing
the
Defendant
and
causing
the
Defendant
to
incur
unnecessary
expenses.
In
this
case,
all
of
the
pleadings
filed
by
the
Plaintiff
should
be
considered
as
a
whole.
In
the
initial
Complaint
(filed
October
26,
2007),
Plaintiff
says,
among
other
things,
that
the
Defendant
sold
defective
“chip
rock.”
In
the
second
Complaint
(filed
December
28,
2007),
-7-
Plaintiff
says
the
Defendant
has
sold
defective
“road
product”
which
is
chip
rock.
In
the
third
Complaint
(filed
March
10,
2008),
Plaintiff
says
the
Defendant
has
sold
defective
“road
product.”
For
that
reason,
Defendant
submitted
an
Affidavit
with
its
Motion
to
Dismiss
referring
to
its
sale(s)
ofrock
to
the
City
ofwitt.
The
fourth
Complaint
(filed
May
12,
2008)
now
says
that
Defendant
has
sold
defective
limestone
based
product.”
As
to
each
of
his
prior
Complaints,
the
Court
ruled
that
an
appropriate
cause
of
action
was
not
pled.
Plaintiffs
Complaint
filed
May
2,
2008
is
nothing
more
than
a
repetition
ofwhat
he
has
filed
in
the
past.
Plaintiffcannot
state
a
cause
of
action
against
Nokomis
Quarry
Company.
Plaintiffhas
been
given
ample
opportunity
to
state
an
appropriate
cause
of
action.
He
is
harassing
the
Defendant
and
he
should
be
responsible
to
pay
all
the
expenses
incurred
by
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
because
of
the
frivolous
pleadings
being
filed.
§
2-615
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
1.
From
the
initial
Complaint
filed
by
the
Plaintiff
until
this
fourth
Complaint
now
on
file,
it
cannot
be
determined
what
cause
of
action
is
being
alleged
against
Nokomis
Quarry
Company.
Paragraph
1
of
the
instant
Complaint
is
identical
to
paragraph
I
of
Plaintiffs
third
Complaint
(filed
March
10,
2008)
but
for
the
deletion
of
four
words,
i.e.,
road,
gagging
from,
systemic.
2.
Paragraph
I
ofPlaintiffs
fourth
Complaint
alleges
that
“over
aperiod
ofseveral
years
the
Defendant
has
sold
defective
Limestone
based
product
which
has
caused
Cummulative
Toxic
and
Dry
air
conditions
within
the
city
of
Witt,
and
Surrounding
geography.”
However,
the
allegation
being
made
still
does
not
meet
the
pleading
requirements
of
the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
-3-
Specifically,
Plaintiffs
allegation
fails
to
disclose
when
any
limestone
based
product
was
sold,
to
whom
it
was
sold,how
it
was
defective,
andhow
the
Plaintiff
has
been
damaged.
Furthermore,
Plaintiffs
allegation
does
not
specifically
state
how
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
was
negligent
in
this
case.
3.
Paragraph
1
ofPlaintitfs
fourth
Complaint
also
contains
allegations
ofdamages
(like
his
previous
claims),
but
fails
to
disclose
who
has
been
damaged
and
what
person
or
entity
has
negligently
caused
the
alleged
damages.
Paragraph
1
ofPlaintiffs
Fourth
Complaint
contains
other
statements
which
are
merely
conclusions
of
law
and
fact
which
should
be
stricken
from
his
Complaint.
4.
Paragraph
2
of
Plaintiffs
fourth
Complaint
is
identical
to
paragraph
2
of
Plaintiffs
third
Complaint.
Paragraph
2
contains
numerous
conclusions
of
law
and
fact
which
should
be
stricken
from
the
Complaint.
Furthermore,
none
ofthe
allegations
in
paragraph
2
relate
to
Nokomis
Quarry
Company.
5.
Paragraph
3
ofPlaintiffs
fourth
Complaint
contains
numerous
conclusions
of
law
and
fact
which
should
be
stricken
from
the
Complaint.
The
only
difference
in
paragraph
3
of
Plaintiffs
fourth
Complaint
(compared
to
paragraph
3
of
Plaintiffs
previous
pleadings)
is
that
he
adds
long
sentences
referring
to
limestone.
None
of
the
wording
added
in
paragraph
3
ofthe
fourth
Complaint
relates
to
Nokomis
Quarry
Company.
6.
Paragraphs
4
and
5
of
Plaintiffs
fourth
Complaint
are
essentially
no
different
than
paragraphs
4
and
5
contained
in
Plaintiffs
previous
pleadings.
As
to
both
paragraphs
4
and
5,
the
-4-
new
Complaint
contains
numerous
conclusions
of
law
and
fact
which
should
be
stricken
from
the
Complaint.
Furthermore,
none
of
the
allegations
in
paragraphs
4
or
5
relate
to
Nokomis
Quarry
Company.
7.
Paragraph
6
of
Plaintiffs
fourth
Complaint
makes
little
sense
and
has
no
relevance
to
any
pleading
in
this
case.
Paragraph
6
does
not
relate
to
Nokornis
Quarry
Company
and
it
should
be
stricken
from
Plaintiffs
Complaint.
WHEREFORE,
the
Defendant,
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
requests
that
this
Court
dismiss
Plaintiffs
Complaint
filed
May
12,
2008
with
prejudice
and
award
Defendant
all
other
relief
the
Court
deems
proper.
NOKOMIS
QUARRY
COMPANY,
a
Corporation,
Defendant
SAMUELS,
MILLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
LLP
BY:
One
of
Its
Attorneys
-5-
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
The
undersied
hereby
ceifies
that
on
the
day
of
June,
2008
he
seed
a
copy
of
the
foregoing
Defendant’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
Plaintiffs
Complaint
Filed
May
12,
2008
by
depositing
the
same
in
a
United
States
Post
Office
Box
enclosed
in
an
envelope
with
postage
fully
prepaid
upon
the
following:
JrraId
R
West
Ii
P.
0.
Box
181
Witt,
IL
62094
EDWARD
Q.
COSTA
SAMUELS,
MILLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
LLP
Attorneys
for
Nokomis
Quarry
Company
225
North
Water
Street,
Suite
301
P.
0.
Box
1400
Decatur,
IL
62525-1400
Telephone:
(217)
429-4325
JRN-32-229
15:56
From:P1DNT
CD
CIR
CLK
217
532
9611
To:12171256313
P.2’4
CoN.
OTh
L
25
—
CITATION
RIJL[C
RECORD
SHEET
1i
)
QJ
L•L
4
-r
.,...
4
.
i,i
J1______
..•.._
—
M’TORNEYS
ATTORNEYS
20071
00002SD
001
Fi1ed
10/2/200i
3T
JERRAL
0
(p
)(ooi)
s
WOKOKI
QUAORY,
ITS
OWN
WE
A()
XP
(0
)(001)
DATE
io/zi
i1l,INC
FIT
JURY
DEMAND
—
-—
cr7
.1fTIY
oTAPpi0AgANC
.
—
2cL
LciZ
CERTIFIED
MAU
DATE
JUDGE
and
il-IPOITEi{
ii’
1
Ii
,
7
{
t1
t
It
.
..‘
1
LJ
i2
5?
1.
..-
-
.
-
-
),•
..
.
ZiLa
°
..__—___
z
z
di
Ri
p
(11
-n
-5
a
B
C
z
H
0
C
I-
0
r
0
z
C
C,)
n.j
I-
H
-Is
Ri
(fl
(j
di
di
z
F
-I
0
D
z
(J
ci
It)
‘SI
01
01
m
-Il
-3
0
3
C
z
H
C
.D
C
I-I
C
a)
H
01
I-,J
a)
LO