BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC.,

EDWARD PRUIM, an individual, and

ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by

LISA MADIGAN, Attorney

General

of the State of Illinois,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by

LISA MADIGAN, Attorney

General

of the State of Illinois,

PCB No. 04-207

PCB No. 97-193

(Consolidated)

(Enforcement)

-vs-

-vs-

Respondent.

Respondents.

Complainant,

Complainant,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

---------------- )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

to: Mr. Mark La Rose, La Rose

&

Bosco

200 N. La Salle Street, #2810

Chicago,

IL 60601

Ms. Clarissa Cutler, Attorney at Law

155

N. Michigan, Suite 375

Chicago,

IL 60601

Mr. Bradley

P. Halloran

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100

W. Randolph, #2001

Chicago,

IL 60601

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today, December 23,2008, filed with the Office

of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, by electronic filing, Complainant's Appeal of

Hearing Officer Ruling, a copy of which is attached and herewith served upon you.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

BY:

PEOPLE

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

ex reI.

LISA MADIGAN

Attorn y General of the

State

Illinois

C

STOPHER GRANT

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

69 W. Washington St., #1800

Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 814-5388

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

-- ------- -------------------------,

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION'CONTROL BOARD

Community Landfill Company, Inc.

EDWARD PRUIM, an individual, and

ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney

General

of the State of Illinois,

PCB No. 04-207

PCB No. 97-193

(Consolidated)

(Enforcement)

-vs-

-vs-

Respondent.

Respondents.

Complainant,

Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS,

)

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney

)

General

of the State of Illinois,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER RULING

NOW COMES Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, and pursuant to

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 101.502(b), respectfully requests that the Board reverse an evidentiary ruling

made by the Hearing Officer at the hearing held in this matter on December 2-4, 2008, and allow

excluded evidence in to the record.

In

support thereof, Complainant states, as follows:

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

I.

EVIDENTIARY RULING

Complainant seeks reversal of Hearing Officer Bradley P. Halloran's granting of

Respondent's Motion in Limine No.1, thereby barring introduction of Complainant's proposed

Exhibit 27 into evidence'. The Hearing Officer excluded proposed Exhibit 27 based on the

Illinois Supreme Court's ruling in

People v. Montgomery,

47 Ill.2d 510 (1971), which prevents

the State from using a felony conviction to impeach a witness'scredibility after

10 years from the

release from confinemene.

II.

THE HEARING OFFICER RULING WAS INCORRECT BECAUSE THE STATE

IS NOT USING A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR IMPEACHMENT

a.

The Ten Year Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply

The Hearing Officer based his ruling on the assumption that the State was trying to use

prior felony convictions to impeach witness testimony, i.e. to put forth evidence

of prior 'bad

acts'

by Edward and Robert Pruim to challenge the truthfulness of their testimony in this case.

However, the evidence

is not being offered for this purpose, but rather as substantive evidence of

the Pruim's personal and direct involvement in violations by Community Landfill Company.

Use

of past crimes evidence for this purpose is allowed under Illinois law.

"Impeachment"

is defined, as follows:

Impeachment orwitness. To call in question the veracity ofa witness, by means of

evidence adducedfor such purpose, or the adducing ofproofthat the witness is unworthy

o/belief.. .

Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth edition

'Complainant'sExhibit 27 was accepted as an offer

of proof in Complainant's case in

chief and is attached hereto as Exhibit

A.

2December 2, 2008 transcript of hearing (hereinafter "Tr." ,

pA).

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

In the

Montgomery

case, the Illinois Supreme Court established a ten year limit on the use

of a prior felony conviction to impeach a testifying witnesses testimony at trial. In

Montgomery,

a Defendant charged with the illegal sale

of drugs testified on the stand in his own trial. To

impeach the witnesses testimonial credibility, the State read into the record a certified copy

of a

20 year old battery conviction of the Defendant. 47 Ill.2d 510, 512. The Supreme Court

ordered a new trial on the drug conviction, and adopted Federal Rule 609, limiting such

impeachment to

10 years after release from confinement. 47 Ill. 2d 510, 518-519. However, the

court limited its rule to the use

of a conviction for impeaching witness testimony, noting:

"In this case the prior conviction which was

put before the

jUly

had no tendency to show

identity, motive or

plan.. .[i}t came into this case only because the defendant took the

witness

stand to testifY in his own defense"

47 Ill. 2d 510, 514.

Therefore, the

Montgomery

opinion only applied to use

of past crime evidence for

impeaching a witness's testimony, and did not establish a

"1

°

year rule" barring its use for any

purpose. The limited nature

of the" 1°year exclusion rule" has been explained by the Supreme

Court in other cases.

In

People

v.

Illgen,

145 Ill. 2d 353 (1991), the Court stated:

[prior conviction evidence

J

" ...

is

admissible, howeve!', where relevant to prove modus

operandi, intent, identity, mote or absence

ofmistake [citation omitted). In fact, this

court has

held that evidence ofother offenses is admissible ifit is relevant for any

purpose other than to show the propensity to commit crime [citation omitted).

145 Ill.

2d 353, 364.

Similarly, in

People

v.

Williams,

161 Ill. 2d 1 (1994), the Court noted:

"Evidence

ofpast crimes which do not relate to testimonial credibility may be admitted

if

they are relevant for some proper purpose other than impeachment".

161 Ill. 2d 1, 38.

b.

The Pruims' Prior Convictions Are Not Offered For Impeachment

The hearing officer's ruling is in error since Complainant is not using the felony

convictions themselves, nor does it submit proposed Exhibit 27 for impeachment

of witness

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

credibility. Rather, proposed Exhibit 27 is offered to show Edward and Robert Pruim's

personal

and direct involvement

in the violations alleged in Counts VII-X3. (See:

People v. C.JR.

Processing

Inc. et aI,

269 IlI.App.3d 1013) (corporate officers may be held liable for violations

of the Act when their active participation or personal involvement is shown). The information

in Exhibit 27 will allow the Board to determine whether the continued operation

of the Landfill

after it had reached capacity (resulting in the overheight waste), was based on the knowing,

personal decision

of Edward and Robert Pruim, individually. (See:

People

v.

Cyrus Tang el aI,

346 Ill. App. 3d 277) (the primary difficulty in determining personal liability is determining

whether the violations were personal acts

of acts of the corporation).

There is no dispute that throughout the period

of alleged violation, Edward and Robert

Pruim were the sole owners and officers

of Community Landfill Company. At the December 2-

4 hearing in this matter, Plaintiff entered into evidence at least three documents highly relevant to

the overheight dumping violations:

Exhibit 14(e) , a Solid Waste Landfill Capacity Certification reporting dumping activity from

April I, 1994 through December 31, 1994. The report clearly shows that Parcel B

of the

Landfill (i.e the Parcel where the overheight was located) was filled to capacity, and even

overfilled during 1994. The Report is signed and the information affirmed by Respondent

Edward Pruim

..

Exhibit 14(0, a Solid Waste Landfill Capacity Certification for dumping at the Landfill during

the period January I, 1995 through December 31, 1995. The report shows that on January I,

1995, Parcel B had no remaining capacity. However, the report also shows that, despite being

overcapaciiy, the Landfill continued to accept 540,135 cubic yards

of waste during 1995. The

report is signed and the information affirmed by Respondent Robert Pruim.

Exhibit 26, consisting

of landfill dump records of the City of Morris, owner of the Landfill. The

records show month-by-month dumping at the Landfill during 1994. By comparison to the

information provided by Edward Pruim in Exhibit 12(e), these records corroborate the fact that

Parcel B reached capacity in approximately August, 1994.

3The Board has already found Community Landfill Company liable under these counts,

which relate to dumping in excess

of the Landfill's permitted limitations.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

The information in proposed Exhibit 27 shows that,

during the same period when the

overheight was being created,

Edward and Robert Pruim were under the threat of incarceration

for failure to pay monies due under plea agreements with the United States. On April

18, 1994,

before Parcel B reached capacity, the plea agreements

of Edward and Robert Pruim were entered,

requiring each to pay a fine

of $1 ,250,000.00 (proposed Exhibit 27, pp. 2-4 and pp. 7-10). On

August 9 (which evidence indicates was the approximate period that Parcel B reached capacity

yet was not closed), the United States filed its motion to incarcerate Edward Pruim and Robert

Pruim for failure to pay the balance

of the fine (proposed Exhibit 27, pp. 24-25). Finally,

proposed Exhibit 27 shows that on July 12, 1995, or about

11 months after the apparent date that

Parcel B exceeded its capacity, the fine was paid (proposed Exhibit 27, pp. 6, 12).

Based on the evidence already in the record, the information contained in proposed

Exhibit 27 will allow the Board to conclude that Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim knew that

Parcel B was overfilled, but continued operations to generate revenue to pay a fine from a case

unrelated to Community Landfill Company4, payments which allowed them to avoid

incarceration.

If the Board so concludes, it should note that continued operation of CLC in

violation

of its permits were personal acts of Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim, for reasons

unrelated to CLC. Under the standard set in the

CJ.R.

and

Tang

cases, these violations were

personal, not company violations.

III.

THE EVIDENCE IS HIGHLY

RELEVANT

The Board should find that proposed Exhibit 27 is not offered for use as impeachment of

witness testimony, but as substantive evidence showing the personal and direct involvement in

the violations alleged in Counts 7-10. The Board should also find that this information is highly

4Community Landfill Company was not a defendant in the federal action.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

relevant to this eleven-year old case.

Moreover, it is NOT the fact of a prior criminal

conviction that is asserted, it is the fact

of the unpaid debt to the United States that makes this

information relevant.

The State has included only records relevant to this case in proposed Exhibit 27.

It

has

not included the Criminal Complaint, nor all

of the criminal allegations made by the United

States. Moreover, the Court records are clearly public documents, and both Edward and Robert

Pruim agreed

in writing to disclosure of the information, specifically:

"Defendant understands that the information in this case and this Plea Agreement are

matters o.fpublic record and may be disclosed to any party".

(Proposed Exhibit 27,

pp.38,56)

Under the circumstances, it would be unjust to prevent the Board from considering this

highly relevant information in making its determination on the personal liability

of Edward and

Robert Pruim for the violations alleged in Counts VII-X.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Hearing Officer's ruling on Respondents' Motion in Limine

No.1 must be reversed

and the Board should consider proposed Exhibit 27 in its deliberations. The information is

highly relevant to the issue

of the personal liability of Edward and Robert Pruim. There is no

basis under Illinois law for excluding the evidence since Complainant is not using the fact of the

underlying convictions for any purpose, and is not using the documents from the criminal case to

impeach the testimony

of Edward and/or Robert Pruim. Illinois Supreme Court decisions clearly

allow for the use

of this evidence for the purpose for which it is offered: to show the personal and

direct involvement

of the Pruims in the violations of Community Landfill company.

WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, respectfully

requests that the Board reverse the Hearing Officer ruling on Respondents' Motion in Limine No.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

1, enter Complainant's proposed Exhibit 27 into evidence, and grant such other relief as the

Board deems appropriate and just.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

LISA

MADIGAN, Attorney

General

of the State of Illinois

Christopher Grant

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

69 W. Washington, # 1800

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-5388

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, CHRISTOPHER GRANT, an attorney, do certify that I caused to be served this 23d

day

of December, 2008, the foregoing Appeal of Hearing Officer Ruling, and Notice of Filing,

upon the persons listed on said Notice by placing same in an envelope bearing sufficient postage

with the United States Postal Service located at 100

W. Ran olph, Chicago Illino' .

CHRISTOPHER GRANT

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

~

' ..

·~

'.

':

'

0j)!l

Criminal Case

,

,

_~ff/

~~i··~·~'mlnitt1J

~tattS

mi5trtrt QCourt

=

__

'~_"~IJ_o_r_t_h_e_r....;n

District of

Illinois, Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.

JUDGMENT IN A CRIMiNAL CASE

(For Offenses Committed On or After November 1,1987)

Jeffrev

.

S~einheck

Edward H. Pruim

(Name of Defendant)

Case Number:

93 Cit 682-1

..

Defendant's Attorney

THE DEFENDANT: _

EJ pleaded guilty to count(s)

one

throu~h

five

o

was found guilty on count(s)

after a

plea of

not guilty.

Accordingly, the defendant is adjudged

9~ilty

of :UCh

c.Q!Jnt(:2.~.~i9!\~~;~~ve

U1~

following offenses:

: •

~E\j,;.

CO? '{- ATT

"".:J. .

.' ._'._.

Datepttense

Count

Title

& Section

Nature of Offense

l

z.

ST.Il~

CUl:':Ir:(}~

t,.

c.~ :~~

...

:~11

luded

Number(s)

18 U.S.C. 1341

Mail Fraud

I..,

c;j~~t&t~.tl.~,£~.2~88

1 through 5

1;"] ..•.. ..•.•• ..

·······i=;~:;.I;.£EEi

,:;

~~~~

..

:~

!

'

.... ,.., CD

"--:'1

'1'

-:'J"f,".l

~

j

u.

S. DISiRL:. "'..

~:.-t".~~.~

DISTaICT ..

O~ ;.HJ.~f«'~~::i.~

.'

DA~:

__

:_~c::~t~fv··

.

~.

...,.'

,,~

~.

. .

\.

-" ..

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through

5 - '; -. -. "of this judgment. The sentence is

imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

o

The defendant has been found not guilty on count(s)

--'-

_

and is discharged as to such count(s).

~

Count(s)

all (rer.lain in

g

-(is1(are) dismissed on the motion of the United States.

Gl

It is ordered that the defendant shall pay a special assessment of

$ 250 .

00

, for count(s)

! , 2 ,

3 ".

4 an C S

,

whicrl shall be due

KJ

immediately

0

as follows:

IT !S FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant sftC::l.ii nuiii'y iile uniteci States attorney for this district within'

30 days of any change of name, residence,

or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs. and special

assessments imposed by this jUdgment are fully paid.

Defendant's Soc. Sec. No.:

340-36-4776

-'--__

Defendant's Date of Birth:

__

1_1_/_2_1_1_4_3

_

Defendant's Mailing Address:

10639

~isty

Hill Road

Orland Park. II. 60462

Defendant's Residence Address:

Sa:J.e As

Above

-------------- ----

r- ,

,Ij .. f

Date

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

f~ildarit:

,..

,"ilse Number:

Edward Prui-.n

93 CR "682-1

IMPRISONMENT

2

Judgment- Page - __ of

5

_

., The

def~rdant

is 'hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for

a

term of

2. mont s

.

.

0

Defendant's cost of

icprison~ent

is waived.

-

..

'."

.

~

-..~

.....

.

J,.&//(/

1/

j?

ti/

v

{/vry~o

./J-'.f/V

.

.:..: _

V

...

...-;');~

"7;:~

'</~-":'.,;

'~iF/1("i_~,

,~~~

':

.

I

:f The court makes the following recommendations to the

Burea~~9r-PrfSoris~

\.'t

~

Federal Prison Cacp in Oxford, Yisconsin because

'r_.

.

.of'defendant's

..

. 'qW. >4

lack

previous record and so that he can be

cl~se~~~ .~iJi::

and friends •

.-

-

i.:.

t.,,~~·'

o

...

?!-' 0' .,

J

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United Slates marshal.

:~

- :

:,

',;<~~;;

~:~~:'.

:-~~.'

o.

~>

,'-

..

J

The defendant shall surrender to the United Stales marshal for this district.

o

at

p.m.a.m.on

_

o

as notified by the United Slates marshal.

?The

o

defendantbefore

2shallp.m.surrenderon

for service of sentence at_ the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons.

o

as notified by the United States marshal.

Gas notified by the probation office.

the fifth Tuesday after co-defendant Robert Pruim is released.

RETURN

i have executed this jUdgment as follows:

of

Defendant delivered on

to __--...:.

at

United Slates Maishal

tJ.'J

'-,j

1:t, ;

._-----_._--~--~-_

..

~.--

........ ---_

...

---

..

-

Deputy Marshal..

.fbX

~

7

J

Po

'3

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

JUU~III~lll-&

1004~-

---,,-'--

G

.FINE

The defendant shall pay a fine of S

1.250.000.

00

.

The fine includes any costs of incarceration and/

or supervision.

~

This amount is the total of the fines imposed on individual counts, as follows:

1,2,3.4 and 5

···~o

'!

:

...

C The court has determined that the defendant does not have the ability to pay interest. It is ordered that:

o The interest requirement is waived.

[] The interest requirement is modified as follows:

This fine plus any interest required shall be paid:

C in full immediately.

-

.

..::.~

~

.:,-

~

~

in full not later than

- .'

:;it

~:'.:ri.' ~

n in equal monthly installments over a period of

"

'--'~ntti-;

l.'09~i~t

payment is due on the

date of this judgment. Subsequent payments are due

mdrithI01h~~fter:'

x..; in' installments according to the

.

following schedule of

pa,yrn€!·A16:'~~'''.7'';;

.

.-._0.

,

~"o~)s

....:0

Tee Clerk of the Court is directed to'

rEh:e'a~e':'$7S0

,000.

and interest

earned held in escrow to be applied to

fi~~.

An additional.$2S0,OOO. is

to be pa{d pursuant to letter agreement dated aay 31. 1994. The balancE

of $250.000. to be paid over defendant's period of supervised release.

as directed by probation office.

If the fine is not paid, the court may sentence the defendant to any sentence which might have been

originally imposed. See

18 U.S.C.

§

3614.

t-r-

I

./l

,

I

/-) .-- '-]-

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

.

~

,:

"

"~

..

*waJ;d

,

,

P

I

':,:

, enda:.

......Er3

-!c

R 6 8

~

"

,ase Numl?er:

-

-"

STATEMENT OF REASONS

ludgment-Page ---of

_

/.

::J

The court adopts the factual findings and guideline application in the presentence report.

OR

R The court adopts the factual findings and guideline application in the presentence report except

~,

~

,

(see.§lttachment.

'.'-~

'-C {.7 :,

If

;..,,:/

negessary)/

I:--'~

(-:t:..l {'if;-

,,'"

_~l."':'';

.f-C!!U

..

C....!.

,'...

t-c,w

ll,~2l/1

/

1-""

/'

I,!

:-~v

.':"\

.

,•

•

~

.

U

d. J

L

'"

c.J.

J

_ /-

:I,'

I:

#_

,-

. /

- J

.

:_t;(l/')'_<,u.c:--~~

......

r

;i1'~-:

/.fl'-!'7h~

~~Lj..e:..-/,t-

//~

/A

c.e",,.

.0

uI

i

j

.

~

Guideline Range Determined by the Court:

.

Total Offense Level:

__

----=~::..:-:..;/~tt._·

----

. t

•• t,

~

. .......

..

:

~'"

.

, .0,

....

.', : .. '.

..

./

_.

0

If,

~ :-.~

..

..

."

...

:";_.";~,.

~

......

:~::'1

'::..

..... ,-, . :. "'.. ":. ,f! "',;

Fine Range:$4.000.

to$

1.25Q.000.

";':.:.

_

~

..

~

,

t/._.

i

•

.-."

.;~.;

:;:;-

~!

•

o

Fine is waived or is below'the guideline range: because' ofjne defendant's inability to pay.

/

~

"'

.......

,

'

'A

.2:.

~l

.'~

.

Restit~tion:

$

f\

f"

I

;.

'7'1-

04-~9

Io··~~

..•

~

-i

0 •.:

..

~<lI

."

0

r.-.... "

,"

.

..

5:'i' ...

o Full restitution is not ordered for the following reason(s):

~.;

.•

I

Criminal History Category: --------

.

J.c:"

-;...1

Imprisonment Range:

U3'"

to

2,.c; months

Supervised Release Range:

~

to

~

years

tJ The sentence is within the guideline range. that range does not exceed 24 months. and the court finds no

reason to depart from the sentence called for

by application of the guidelines,

.

OR

o

The sentence is within the guideline range. that range exceeds 24 months. and the sentence is imposed

for the following reason(s):

OR

The sentence departs from the guideline range

o

upon motion of the government. as a result of defendant's substantial assistance.

o

for the following reason(s):

£f

fJ-L/

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

I

,,'fITED STATES DISTRICT ... OURT

NORTHE..~

DISTRICT OF

ILLINOI~

'E r

r.:;'

~ ~.

t

r.;;'

~

EASTERN

DIVISION

.

.0<> t.=o .,

I.

......

W

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

VS.

EDWARD H. PRTJIM,

. Defendant.

)

).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ff,;

5tU.~q-;-

i,L":,

~:

..:

.'·~d~

.•

C~

tJN~lE::::··.72

':;':~:cIiC'";

/.~~

No 93 CR

0682-1

JUDGE JOHN A.. NORDBERG

.

.

'§b~llFACTION

OF JUtlGMEHTS

Judgment

was entered for the plaintiff and against

the defendant in the above-entitled cause in the united States

District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on

the 18th day of April of 1994, imposing a fine in the amount

of

$~,250,OOO.00

and an assessment in the amount of $250,,000

The fine and assessment having been paid, Clerk of the united

states District Court is hereby authorized and empowered to satisfy

said

jUdgments

of record and the lien of said jUdgments recorded as

document number 94=646442 on July 22, 1994 in the county of Cook is

hereby released.

JAMES 13. BURNS

Uni~

States Attorney

/

.. :

/' /

I

/

,,'1/1.1

i

/"

_ ___.

BY

~

I

/f/}.t~

/"1 / ....

W...

C. .

L

.~/

~

lMiN'~M.

0

U

ARPINO

.-

Assistant U •. S. Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312)

353~5075

NOTE

For the protection of the owner

p

this Release/Satisfaction'

should be filed with the Recorder of Deeds or the Registrar of

Titles in Whose office the lien was filed.

AD/row

07/1.1./95

#891~678

£

--I

13

~...

/!

.1 ......

c:"

"" ....

V-AI VUI

:Vu

If..c.u

V;;Z. U

I

1--;... ..........

~

\lV."

---'-

_

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

"

Itnitt

tatt£'

II

t5'trict

ourt

APR 2 5 1994

'I"

q-

~jl

.... _, __.,.

~I,n,

CrimiM'

e-

---,,~

__

-=-N.:..:o:..:r~t

h=-.::.e--=.r.=n

District of

Illinois, Eastern Division

JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

(For Offenses Committed On or After November 1, 1987)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.

Robert J. Pruim

Case Number:

93 CR 682-2

(Name

of Defendant)

Charles Sklarsky

Defendant's Attorney

_12/88

1 through 5

,-

'.

Nature of Offense

Mail Fraud

Title & Section

THE DEFENDANT:

~

pleaded guilty to count(s)

~O.!:.!;n~e---!:t~h~r~o=----u!::!.b.g.!:.!;h--:!::F...,!i~v!....!!e=---

_

o

was found guilty on count(s)

--------------------jllW~l___IIe_____i

f------- after a

plea

of not guilty.

Accordingly, the defendant is adjudged

guilty of such count(s), which involve the following offenses:

Date Offense

Count

Concluded

Number(s)

8 U.S.C. 1341

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through

5

of this judgment. The sentence is

imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

[J

The defendant has been found not gUilty on count(s)

.

_

and is discha.rged as to such count(s),

n=Count(s)

all remaining.

.

Tis)(are)dismissedonthem~oftheU::ltedStates,

G~

It is ordered that the defendant shaH pay a special assessment of $

2

5n

0

Q.

, for count(

S

i

i , 2 , ?- ,4 :'

p

d 5

.

, which Sh81! be due i-vJximmediate1y CJ as foHovvs:

IT It:! FUR-rHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States attorney for this district within

30 days of any change ot name, residence,

or mailing a.ddress until ali fines, restitution, costs, and special

assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid,

i 1 Q - '<

R-

Q ?

L, L,.

Def8T!cl2lrlt'S Soc. Sec, i-.io, _-_-_'_-_-_'_-_'_'__

Ap:-il 18.

199~

---'-

'--"~"'"".,

/[i~~t~:..

·':~~.):~t~C:~'~.~7'''':

C',

~~~Jr7t>?:1c'?

---~}/i".

i./

<~,=:~:-~;-{H·;~~~;-:.t::-,·

,/

l~"

--_.-._..

,-. :...

~'t-

~

.... _: ,... :.,

--."

~'~::1

J:

i:::.'

t. :: ;:.

...

~~.

__

-.::..S_~~

~

__

'

~_, _~.;~~.

__ .

'.__

+.+__ ._.

'_'.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

AO

.1

24S's4R;v. 4190; Sheet

<' .

,.

Imprisonrnen:

r

----;,

De~nda~:'

Robert Pruim

Case.Number:

93 CR 682-2

IMPRISONMENT

~,

2

5

Judgment-Page

of ,,

_

The defendant

is hereby committed tc the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for

a term of

15 months

Defendant's cost of imprisonment is waived.

D

The court makes the foliowing recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:

Federal

P~ison

Camp in Oxford, Wisconsin because of defendant's lack of

previous record and so that he can be close to family and friends.

:J The defendant is remanded to the custody of the united States marshai.

-- The defendant shall

sur~ender

to tne United States marshal

io~

this

dist~ici.

a.m.

-. al ---- p.m. on

_

:= as notifiec

by

the Unitec States marsha:.

X' The ceiencian\ snel! surrenoer

tor

service of sentence at the institution deslonated bv the Bureau of Prisons.

=~-t;sfDrt2·p.rn.on

21 Jun 94

-'"

_..

a~ nO'!!l~eO

t}y

ine united Slales marsha!

_n'

a~; nc:t~~;EC

tr/

:he

orabc:ticr. cfLce.

RETURN

; haVE: executed th:s Juogmen: as fallows'

-------_._-_...-----

'.~'

-,

.-

--_

.. -

.----_

..

_--_._

..

_---_. __

..

-----_

..

--------- .',:

- _.

_

..

'.:... .

_ i

..:.: ....

_'t

i , ..

~

_:,- -; ,-'

:j~

'-

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

De:endt$~:

Gase Number:

Robert Pruim

93 CR 682-2

SUPERVISED.RELEASE

JUG

ant.-Page _3

of

_5__

Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be on supervised release for a term of .

2 years

While on supervised release, the defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime and shall not

illegally

possess a controlleasubstance. The defendant shall comply with the standard conditions that have been

adopted

by this court (set forth below). If this judgment imposes a restitution obligation, it shall be a condition of

supervised release that the defendant pay

any such restitution that remains unpaid at the commencement of the

term of

supervised release. The defendant shall comply with the following additional conditions:

13

The defendant shall report in person to the probation office in the district to which the defendant is released

within

72 hours of release

from

the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.

~

The defendant shall pay any fines that remain unpaid at the commencement of the term of supervised release.

[3 The defendant shall not possess a firearm or destructive device.

STANDARD CONDfTIONS

OF SUPERVISION

While the defendarlt is on supervised release pursuant to this judgment. the defendant sr,all not commit another federal. state or local crime. In addition

1) the defendant shall not leave the JUDICIal District Without U",e permiSSion of the court or probation of/iee

r

;

2,

the defendarlt shall report to tr,s probation officer as direcled

by

the

co~rt

or probation officer &nd shall submit a truthful and comp,ete vmnen report wlthir:

the first five

da~'s

of each month:

3) the defenda,.. t shaH answer truthfully a/l inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer:

4) rhe ciefenoant shail support his or he: dependen!s and meel other famiiy responsibilities;

5) the defendant shall work regUlarly at a lawful occupation unless excused by the probation officer tor SChOOling. training, or other acceptable reasons:

6) the defenjan! sha!: notify the probation officer withir; 72 hours of any change In reSidence or employment:

7) the defendant shall refrair, from excessive use of alcoho: ana shall not purcnase. possess. use. distflbUl€, or administer any narcotic or other controliee

substance.

or any paraphemalic related to such substances. exceD! as prescribed 0)/2. ;:.hysisian:

f:";

ti'1~'

cr·!e~'=5:·.

S~18t:

"~7

2£s·):i~:~

\/.r~;'

2.-,:

·:.:.:~:::-,r-

2:-.:';-";;-0::

fr"l

::ri~':";:rt2~

21C~:~"~J

ar,c

s~a;:

nc,; aS5oc.ia;e \-",';t;

G~"T'

c.ers.::""!

C;';:lVI::t~(;

o! & \eion\

._::-.~:::c.:

C-?-;7S:'

:~'-,~S:;;C:',

l.

l-.....

~.:..-

:-,.'_

:~~

.:"'\:

.-::/:-~I":

..-

~:"'::.:

;_....

:::~ 1j~~f'.:'~7':

~',

P:-:--

:,rcb2ti.:'.:-

,-J~i::~

:"-:>

::c.:£=·-':'c·"~"

:;:~.

'.t:.

.........

~.

r.::--.,-?:: ,.:

P'~'\'~'

t~c:

__ :."

':'~

:-:-:£3::"-,''::'-'

~

~;..::-

::~f;:-,':;=-"~:"

,-,'~,c:.

r£:;:.;c:~..:.

.:."

....

'~

..

.:~

... ;.

~

..

~::

", :"'':

~c'

::.:.

ter':~l;:-:,

'=:"'::':::

~:3:~'

:J=-P_,., : -.

~ ~;

.:: . :..;" '.

~'.,'~'

::

r,-,.::~.

-:- :-..::,":

;:(·i·:;:'Ci~:

... '::; S:-,.:';

;,~

:

;".r.r-:-,

:n.;' 0-:;;-:;-

"~:ior:

=.

c..;;:'j)~.:,c::

-;:..€-

~\'i::

S..;.-'

-,t'.;,.:.

~;

:.'

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

I

Defendant:

c

Case" Number:

Robert Pruim

93 CR 682-2

FINE

4

5

J~nent

- Page

of _.

_

The

defendant shall pay a fine of

$ 1, 250 , 000 • 0 O.

The fine includes any costs of incarceration

andl

or supervision.

.

[] This amount is the total of the fines imposed on individual counts, as follows:

1,2,3,4 and 5

U The court has determined that the defendant does not have the ability to pay interest. It is ordered that:

n The interest requirement is

waived.

U The interest requirement is modified as follows:

This fine plus any interest required

shall be paid:

o

in full immediately.

n in full not later than

_

n in equal monthly instaliments over a period of

months. The first payment is due on the

date

of this .iudgment. Subsequent payments are due monthly thereafter.

iZ in instailrnents according to the foliowing schedule of payments:

The Clerk of the Cburt is directed to release $750,000. and interest

earned held in escrow to be applied to fine. An additional $250,000.

is to be paid pursuant to letter agreement dated May 31, 1994. ,The

balance of $250,000. to be paid over defendant's period of supervised

release, as directed

by

probation office.

.

:-2

-

__ .,-:

,-,-

'_.

.

-~

~;

..:';.:

--

-

.: '0' ,_ "".

'_,,--:~

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

. '.

.c'....\ev.

4f90)

Sheet 7 . S.':'Iof Reasons

'",' .. A '"

~~

.

~>

-

~-Defendant:

Robert Pruim

Case Number:

93

CR

682-2

o

Ju

ent-Page _5__ of __5__

1.'

months

g, The court adopts the tactual findings and guideline application in the presentence report except

(see attachment, if necessary):

J

';:;tz".

;/

J1

+I-~-..LL

"? /, (

~~r:.t,7~t.b

~

~~~#

r,

r~~~'

~~~.

x-

Guideline Range Determined by the Court:

Total Offense Level:

J..B'=U!i

_

Criminal History Category:

_.....11"---

_

.

If

Imprisonment Range:

~

to

Supervised Release Range:

-L-

to .-.:L years

Fine Range:

'$4.000

to

$ -1-, 2 50, 000.

4v

Fine

is waived

or is below'the guideline range, because of the defendant's inability to pay,

Restitution:

$

~A~----

n

Fuii restitution is not ordered for the foHowing reason(s):

:fl The sentence is within the guideline range, that range does not exceed 24 months, and the court finds no

reason to depart from the sentence called for by application of the guideiines,

OR

U The

sentence is within the guideline ranqe. that ranQe exceeds 24 months M.nri thA

spntpn,~""

is i.-n;::"C'ss:i

fOf the foiiowing reason(s):

:

:.':

~ :.:~'

-.:

::

_.

,.

•

-'~.-.-~

..-

_ .....

-.-

......

p

.:.~

.::"

;:•

.:.:.,.::..:.::~<..:

--_:

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

UNI __

u

STATES DISTRICT COUR

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CR 0682-2

JOHN A. NORDBERG

UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

No 93

ROBERT J.

PRUIM,

)

JUDGE

)

Defendant.

)

)

,. ,'.

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS

Judgment was entered for the plaintiff and against

~he

defendant in the above-entitled cause in the united States

District Court/ Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on

the 18th day of April of 1994, imposing a fine in the amount

of $1,250,000.00 and an assessment in the amount of $250.00.

The fine and assessment having been paid, Clerk of the United

States District Court is hereby authorized and empowered to satisfy

said judgments of record and the lien of said judgments recorded as

document number 94-643704 on July 22, 1994 in the County of Cook is

JAMES B. BURNS

Un~q

states Attorney

II

/\/-

BY: /

-'/~r:-11

Il}

l/(/:---;/-

~N~-o

D

i

ARPINO

l

Assistant U.s. Attorney

219 south Dearborn street

Chicago~

Illinois 60604

(312) 353-5075

NOTE

For the protection of the owner, this ReleasejSatisfaction

should be filed with the Recorder of Deeds or the

Regi~trar

of

T i-i:les in whose aIf ic.;ei:.b8

lie~

';-,7as

filed._

ll.D

! IT'.

~.!

07/11/95

#8911678

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

." _, c"'

'I";

,"',\,'_

,-.-

"

.

"

,'-.

, .. '

......

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

,~

NORTHERN nISTR:JrCDJC' OF :JrLL:JrNOIS

'-<:jY.'r

8,~.I

.• ;.

. ':i

·s~

UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

ROBERT Jo

PRUIM,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 93 CR 682-2

Honorable John Ao Nordberg

NOTICE OF FILING

TO: Jackie Stern

Assistant UoSo Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street

Suite 1200

Chicago, IL 60604

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 2, ,1994, counsel

for RobertJo Pruim filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, at

219 S. Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois, Robert J. Pruimos Response to

GovernmentOs Motion For sentencing on Failure to Pay a Fine, a

copy of which is attached and is hereby served upon you.

Resp,ectfully SUbmitted,

~.i.

Rv.

0

~~

~-:--..:.'-_~=-.:...:..:;;

~~ ~~~/

_~"~;-

__

One of the

attor~

for Robert J. Pruim

Charles Bo Sklarsky

Robert R. Stauffer

JENNER & BLOCK

One IBlvI Plaza

Chicago, IL 60611

(312) 222=9350

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

•

Honorable John A. Nordberg

IN THE UNITED STATES DXSTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OP ILLINOIS

ROBERT J. PRUIM'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION

FOR SENTENCING

ON FAILURE TO PAY A FINE

...

. .:

:;;

.

/0

'J.'0'

-

~

t}':~.·

Case No. 93 CR 682-2

UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

Vo

)

)

ROBERT Jo

PRUIM,

)

.

)

Defendant.

)

In response to the GovernmentOs Motion for Sentencing

on Failure to Pay a Fine, defendant ROBERT J. PRUIM, by his

counsel, joins in the response of Edward H. Pruim, filed on

September 1, 1994.

Respectfully SUbmitted,

~q-ft-~

One of the

at~

for Robert J. Pruim

Charles B. Sklarsky

Robert Ro Stauffer

JENNER & BLOCK

One IBM Plaza

Chicago, IL 60611

RS40903.RES

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

•.

'.'

..

.

,

y;i

.::'

I, Robert R. stauffer, an attorney, certify that I

served the foregoing Notice of Filing and the document to which

it refers upon counsel of record by causing true and correct

copies of same to be delivered, by telecopy and u.s. mail to:

Jackie stern

Assistant u.s. Attorney

219 South Dearborn street

Suite 1200

Chicago, IL 60604

on this 2nd day of September, 1994, before the hour of 5:00 p.m.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

:HOD

93 CR 682=1

Honorable John Ao Nordberg

UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA,

)

»

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

»

EDWARD

PRUIM,

»

)

Defendan'to

)

IN THE UNITED

STATE~ ~IST~ICT

COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN

DIVX~ION

NOTICE OF FILING

TO: Jacquelinestern

Assistant u.s. Attorney

219 South Dearborn, 12th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60604

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 1st day of September, 1994, we

caused to be filed with the Clerk of the United states District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

DEFENDANT EDWARD PRUIM'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SENTENCING OF

FAILURE TO PAY BALANCE OF A FINE, a copy of which is attached

hereto and thereby made a part hereof.

IY7:

beL

~

STEINBACK, GILLESPIE

&

MARTIN

GENSON, STEINBACK, GILLESPIE & MARTIN

53 West Jackson, Suite 1420

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 726=9015

I

p

JEFFREY B. STEINBACK

p

certify that I have delivered a copy

of the foregoing Notice and Response to the above addressed on.

Sept:ember 1

p

19940

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

·.'~').i)

.

'.~

.-

...,'.

""

No.

g3 CR 682-1

Honor~ble

John Ao Nordberq

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

»

»

pla.intiff,

. »

)

Va

)

)

EDWARD

PRUIM

g

)

)

Defenda.nt.

)

IN THE UNITED STATES

~ISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN

DJtV:ltSXO~

DEFENDANT EDWARD PROIM'S RESPONSE TO KOTION

FOR SENTENCING OF FAILURE TO PAY BALANCE OF A FINE

Now Comes Defendant Edward Pruim, by and through his counsel,

Jeffrey Steinback, of the law firm of Genson, Steinback, Gillespie

& Martin, and in response to the government's motion for sentencing

for failure to pay balance of a fine, states as follows:

The government has filed a very brief motion, accompanied by

two (2) identical letter agreements executed by both Edward and

Robert Pruim, seeking an additional period of incarceration for

each of them

0

At the outset, it must be noted that, in fact, there

is an outstanding balance which was due on May 31, 1994 by both

Edward and Robert in the amount of $250,000 and it is further

acknowledged that the government has a right to pursue additional

fa.ilure to

pOly

the agreed tine •

Wi

o

0

However, the law does not mandate that this Honorable Court

necessarily impose a greater prison sentence

0

Moreover."

under

~

11.

the circumstances surrounding this case, an additional prison

sentence is not warranted 0

The statu.:te in question, defining criminal default, is 18

UoSoCo § 36150

It reads as

follows~

SO

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

1

.1

:

~,

.'.

....

.,~

...

'

-',

,f

Whoever, having been sentenced to pay a fine, willfully

fails to pay the fine, shall be fined not more than twice

the amount of the unpaid balance of the fine or $10,000,

whichever is greater, imprisoned not more than one year,

or both.

Because the parties have agreed that an untimely payment would

be deemed uwill ful

DO

for the purposes of the letter agreement (page

2, SUbparagraph 3), the focus of the inquiry is not whether the

Pruims are in criminal default, but what, if any further punishment

ought to be imposed.

To this end, there is a seemingly endless

stream of good-faith efforts on the part of both Edward and Robert

to make good on their obligations.

We begin by underscoring the fact that both Edward and Robert

have already placed $750,000 each into an escrow account for the

benefit of the government. It is thus not as if the government has

never received anything from these individuals towards their

obligation.

Quite to the contrary, there has been over $1.5

million paid to date.

Secondly, as is clear from the financial statements, which

have long since been tendered to the government, neither Edward nor

Robert

..

A..~

__

}1LlC:i>:>C:U'l...1.y.

,-

uav!;

----

funds

necessary

t.o

fulfill

"cheir'

financial obligation to pay the balance of the agreed fine at this

time.

....

.!.~

-

\-.JUlle,

and Robert have undertaken a continual Herculean effort

g

dating

back to before October of 1992

8

to dispose of any and all available

assets to try to meet their legal obllg;;itio

n

!;:

h~T/O

0

F0r <?-x::::.mpl18;-

2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

in October of 1992, the Pruims began to negotiate a merger

arrangement with continental waste, Inc. (CWI) for the purchase of

the Pruims' business, XL Disposal Corp., InCa (XL), including

negotiations to sign an agreement which would preserve XL's assets

in the event of a potential RICO action. At the same time, the

Pruims arrived at a tentative plea agreement with the government

which would protect XL's assets from the prospect of any such RICO

action. The tentative value placed on XL at that time was

approximately $33 million. Preliminary terms of that merger were

agreed to, with CWI moving into offices to begin managing XL's

business. Negotiations with the united states Attorney's office

continued.

This was in February, 1993. However, a snag emerged

when CWI was advised by the Purchasing Department for the City of

Chicago that no contracts for disposal of waste would be issued

unless the threat of forfeiture and the Pruims were removed from

XL. The net effect was that the value of XL was reduced to $21

million. This occurred in April of 1993.

Thereafter, in May of 1993, a venture capital group, First

Analysis joined' with CWI in an effort to reduce the proposed

purchase

t'l1hen 'theiL'

corrtract began

American

National Bank, under the merger agreement. called XL's credit due

and all receipts were assigned for satisfying the loan.

Tl1.eh,

in

';ilii~

of

199::1,

~vas'te

AvAcmagemen-c

(WMI)

and the Pruims

began negotiating, with WMI offering $19 million to the Pruims to

purchase XL. One (1)

't'.reek later. hovuever,

WMI withdrew

it.s offer.

3

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

•

.

~

..

.

."\

Later, that same month, a new company, Browning Ferris, agreed

to a $17 million purchase price, predicated entirely on the

condition that the Pruims could guarantee that their company no

longer faced the threat of a RICO prosecution.

Regrettably,

negotiations with Browning Ferris likewise ceased.

with the

mounting pressures, both Edward and Robert Pruim agreed to appear

before a federal grand jury, confessing under oath their misconduct

in order to satisfy the government and thereby gain additional time

to attempt to sell their company. The proceeds of any such sale

were always earmarked for the payment of fines.

Throughout August of 1993, the Pruims continued to negotiate

with two (2) other companies to sell XL assets with which to

satisfy their obligations to the Government. By September of 1993,

lacking cash flow, loosing bank relationships and being continually

pursued by secured lenders, the Pruims were faced with the sale of

the company to USA waste for $8 million, representing a devaluation

of over $25 million from the original CWI offer, less than one (1)

year earlier. In the wake of the investigation, openly disclosed

by the Pruims to potential purchasers, the net received

by

Pruims

was reduced to

$102

million, with a back end payment to be made in

November of

19940

with this money, both Ed.ward and. Robert executed

plea agreements with the government, placing 105 million in escrow

as partial payment of their fines.

still experiencing massive financial pressure. the Pruims

stopped making paYiilen'ts on at $2.2 million loan

~:hey

nave "'d.. t.h

eq'~ipment

4

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

located in South Bend, Indiana.

The Pruims scrambled to try to

liquidate other companies and assets, GFC made a demand on overdue

payments and threatened a lawsuit in January of 1994. In

an

effort

to stem the tide of the lawsuit, the Pruims initiated negotiations

with a company called Environmental Services of America (ENSA) to

purchase XL's South Bend facility as well as a facility in Scott

city, Missouri.

In February of 1994, an agreement was reached with ENSA,

whereby ENSA agreed to assume the debt for the two (2) industrial

fuel plants, with a closing date set for October 1st.

However,

ENSA had no interest in the processing equipment financed by GFC.

with due dates rapidly approaching, the Pruims continued to

negotiate frantically with GFC to forebear from sueing.

At the

same time, the Pruims attempted to prompt USA waste to prepay

monies due in November of 1994 at a discounted price or otherwise

exercise an option to purchase the remainder of XLus assets at a

discount.

This prepayment of monies would have generated

sufficient assets to satisfy the immediate obligations of both

Edward and Robert. Unfortunately

g

in a letter dated March 4

u

1994

u

USA Waste refused both requests.

To add insult to injury. GFC filed its suit against the Pruims

to obtain the entirety of payments on its $2.2 million loano The

Fr-ui.c.s lrJ".:.re forc<8Q

t.o consult. bankrupt.cy

attorneys concerning

options under Chapter 110

In

May

of 1994

G

not vdshing to go bankru.pt

_ u.

the Prubas

initiated.

negotiC'ltions TnTi th

the

5

C:ity of

to

to

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

purchase twenty-six (26) acres of vacant land. A parcel of this

lamd has local siting approval for hazardous waste activity. The

acquisition of this land could generate funds sufficient to meet

the Pruims' obligations to pay their fines. At the same time, the

Pruims continued to negotiate with GFC to avoid being forced into

bankruptcy.

In June of 1994, the Pruims were able to execute a contract

with the city of Harvey to purchase the above parcel of land with

a closing of July 19, 1994. In JUly, the City of Harvey requested

and obtained an extension of its closing date to August 31, 1994.

Significantly a forbearance agreement was reached with GFC, whereby

GFC agreed to forebear from pursuing enforcement of its jUdgment

against

, ,

the Pruims in exchange for the Pruims assignment of their

beneficial interest of certain properties and an agreement to pay

the total amount due by June of 1995. Most importantly, GFC agreed

to allow monies due to the government to be paid out first from a

liquidation sale. Additionally, Robert Pruim began the service of

his sentence of imprisonment atF.P.C. Duluth.

Thereafter, in August of 1994

9

the city of Harvey obtained an

a.ddi

ticnal t1j:C

,""

f'\\

Closing is set for September 15, 1994.

The documents appended to this response are just some of many,

reflecLiHy 'the unending.. gooQi=iaith efforts on. the part of the

Pruims to meet their obligation to pay the balance of their fines.

It is apparent thet

by

NOYe~0e~

of this year, just a couple of

months away. t.he Pruims l:'I!ill have B!vodlable sufficient funds from

6

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

\•.•.•...

"s,'

. l'

,,~

..

,-.

their USA waste contract to satisfy their fine obligations. It is

true that they are presently in default, but it is not from want of

trying everything within their collective power to meet these

obligations.

Most recently, pursuant to a written agreement, Edward Pruim

voluntarily signed over an approximate $110,000 tax refund due him

to the government. This substantial sum is a further sign of the

continuing efforts that the Pruims have undertaken to meet their

obI igations under this plea agreement. The Pruims acknowledge that

the government has every right to make the present motion.

They

wish only to place the request for additional time against the

backdrop of all they have done and will continue to do to pay their

fines. It has been a sincere struggle.

,

Re~~fUllY

submitted,

~~~~

GENSON, STEINBACK, GILLESPIE & ¥UffiTIN

53 West Jackson, suite 1420

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 726=9015

'7

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

IJ.

, .?

-.'.

.,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

EDWARD H. PRUIM, and

ROBERT J. PRUIM

)

)

)

)

)

)

District of Illinois, and respectfUlly moves this Court to impose

an additional sentence of incarceration on each of the defendants,

EDWARD H. PRUIM and ROBERT J. PRUIM, as provided for in the Letter

Agreements in this matter, based on the defendants failure to pay

the agreed upon fine on the agreed upon date.

Each of the defendants entered into a binding Letter Agreement

with the Government, which Agreements were accepted by this court.

Those Agreements provided, and the Court ordered

i

that each of the

defendants would pay a fine of $250,000 on or before May

31

i

1994.

The defendants have not paid that money.

The Letter Agreements each provide that failure to

pay

those

monies 22will constitute a willful failure to pay the agreed fine

i

and the

governm~nt

will have the righ-t to move the Court to impose

an additional sentence of incarceration on the defendant pursuant

to Title

18 i

united states Code, Sections 3614 and

3615

i

if the

government elec.ts to do so in its sale discretion

022

Because -ths defendants have [aIled to pay the fine that was to

1

./

U\

" -.J.

'fy

~q"/

p,9.'-I

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

...

~.

be paid on or before May 31, 1994; namely a total of $500,000, the

government now respectfully requests that this Court impose an

additional sentence of incarceration on each of the defendants.

Section 3615 specifically provides that any defendant who has

been sentenced to pay a fine and who "willfully fails to pay the

fine, shall be ... imprisoned not more than oneyear

DU

•

As noted

above; the defendants

v

agreed in the the Letter Agreement that

failure to pay the agreed upon fine constitutes a willful failure.

Therefore, the defendants should be sentenced pursuant to section

3614, and 3615.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully

requests that this Court sentence the defendants to an additional

period of incarceration.

Respectfully sUbmitted,

JAMES B. BURNS

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By~

n.;:,~;:)\

~~!~~~~IjfETT:~~Rea~

.•

ci~

Ui!.l.l.

~

'"t-.

a\-~::>

....

_~

~~

:1l.~--:-o-.-nc.y

__ ......

u~s~

AttorneyDs Office

219 South Dearborn

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 353-5329

2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

•

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

...

,~

SEP

2 4 1993

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Vo

ROBERT Jo PRUIM

)

)

)

)

)

Noo

H.

SWAm-

c .

l

UNNIN""

INITED

c'r'

'r-

~."IAM,

CL£R'.-

1

~

(/l

/'

(9

I

0

~'1

~

./'"

_

,,\

~

1:.$ 01""'.

wI

i~lcr

COUit(

..

PLEA AGREEMENT

This Plea Agreement between the United States Attorney for the

Northern District of Illinois, MICHAEL Jo SHEPARD, and the

defendant, ROBERT J. PRUIM, and his attorneys, JEFFREY Bo STEINBACK

and CHARLES Bo SKLARSKY, is made pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of. Criminal Procedure and is governed in part by Rule

11(e) (1) (C), as more fully set forth in Paragraph 14, below 0

This Plea Agreement is entirely voluntary and represents the

entire agreement between the United States Attorney and defendant

regarding defendantOs criminal liabilityo

This Plea Agreement concerns criminal liability only, and

nothing herein shall limit or in any way waive or release any

administrative or jUdicial civil claim, demand or cause of action,

whatsoever, of the united States or its agencies 0 Moreover, this

Agreement is limited to the united States AttorneyOs Office for the

Northern District of Illinois and cannot bind any other federal,

s'ca'ce or

local

prosecuting,

authorities except as expressly set rcrth.in this

Agreereent~

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

'IL"

_:.

',<,:\1

By this Plea Agreement, MICHAEL J. SHEPARD, united states

Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and the defendant,

ROBERT J. PRUIM, and his attorneys, JEFFREY B.STEINBACK and

CHARLES B. SKLARSKY, have agreed upon the following:

1.

Defendant acknowledges that he has been charged in the

information in this case with five counts of mail fraud, in

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341.

2.

Defendant has read the charges against him contained in

the information, and those charges have been fully explained to him

by his attorney.

3.

Defendant fUlly understands the nature and elements of

the crimes with which he has been charged.

4.

Defendant will enter a voluntary plea of guilty to Counts

One through Five, inclusive, of the information in this case.

5.

Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty

of the charges contained in Counts One through Five, inclusive, of

the information in this case. In pleading guilty, defendant admits

the following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond

a reasonable doubt:

(a)

(1) W.ith

r'espect to Count One of the information,

beginning in or about December 1988 and continuing until in or

about September 1990, at Chicago and Crestwood, and elsewhere, in

the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, defendants

ROBERT J. PRUIM, Edward H. Pruim, and Thomas 0

0

Connor, devised,

intended to devise, and participated in a scheme to defraud the

City

of

Chicago by depriving the c:i t:y nf

ChicCl.go of defendCl.n't

2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

Thomas OOConnoros honest services by means of false and fraudulent

representations, pretenses, and promises.

Defendants ROBERT J. PRUIM and Edward H. Pruim gave and

promised to give defendant Thomas O'Connor cash, property, loans,

and other things of value, totalling at least $150,000, in order to

influence defendant Thomas 0

°

Connor in the performance of acts

related to his employment with the City of Chicago.

Defendant Thomas O'Connor promised to use his position, and

did use his position, as an employee of the City of Chicago to aid

and assist defendants ROBERT J. PRUIM and Edward H. Pruim and their

company XL Disposal in their business dealings with the City of

Chicago.

Defendant Thomas O'Connor promised to provide, and did

, provide information gained in his position as General Foreman of

Dumps to his co-schemers on matters that he thought'would be useful

to their business and business dealings with the City of Chicago.

In addition, defendant Thomas OOConnor promised to take any action

that he could, and did engage in various actions to help out his

co-schemers in their business dealings with the City of Chicago.

Throughout the year of 1989, defendants ROBERT J. PRUIM and

Edt'lard fL Pruim gave defendant Thomas 0

~

Conno:c cash bribes in the

amount of $500 on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, reSUlting in bribe

payments of at least $20,000.

In addition, defendant ROBERT J.

PRUIIiIJ

adIilH~s

t:ha'c'-:he

governmeni:'s evidence would show that

for

at

least six months during 1988, defendants ROBERT J. PRUIM and Edward

H. Pruim gave defendant Thomas

OOCo~~or ~ash

bribes in the amount

3

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

of $500 on a weekly or bi-weekly basis

g

resulting in bribe payments

of at least $10,000.

During the first six months of 1990, defendants ROBERT J.

PRUIM and Edward H. Pruim gave defendant Thomas 0 i Connor cash

bribes in the amount of $500 every two or three weeks, resulting in

paYments of at least $3000. During June, July, and August of 1990,

defendants ROBERT J. PRUIM and Edward

H.

Pruim gave defendant

Thomas OiConnor cash bribes

g

reSUlting in paYments of $3000.

During that timeg defendant ROBERT J. PRUIM made four paYments,

totalling $2000.

In addition,. defendant ROBERT J. PRUIM gave

d~fendant

Thomas OiConnor $5000 in cash during September 1990.

On or about December 9, 1988, defendants ROBERT J. PRUIM and

Edward H. Pruim purchased a $30,000 Certificate of Deposit

g

which

,

they posted as collateral on behalf of defendant Thomas OiConnor

g

so that he could obtain a

$30

g

000

personal bank loan.

After

defendant Thomas QiConnor obtained the

$30

g

000

loan

g

he used the

money to purchase the house located on Bass Lake in Indiana that he

wanted to buy.

Throughout. 1989

g

defendants ROBERT

J 0

PRUIM and Edward Ho

totalling approximately $12,000

1

which defendant Thomas QuConnor

used to make monthly payments on the $30

p

OOO loan described above.

On or aloou:c

Ap:cil .i:S

g

1989

u

ciefemdam'cs ROBERT

,J

0

PRUllIiI

and

Edward. H0 Pruim

gave defendant Thomas Q 9 Connor a check in the

4

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

•

<.

-...."

';' •

.

':

r"--

On or about November 30, 1989, defendants ROBERT J. PRUIM and

Edward H. Pruim gave defendant Thomas OOConnor a $3,000 cash bribe.

Defendants ROBERT J. PRUIM and Edward H. Pruim gave defendant

Thomas OOConnor a check in the amount of $3500, which was drawn on

an account belonging to X L Disposal.

Defendant Thomas OOConnor

obtained $3000 cash by depositing the $3500 check into a bank

account maintained in the name of X-L Repair, and receiving $3000

back from the deposit.

On or about January 23, 1990, defendants ROBERT J. PRUIM and

Edward H. Pruim gave defendant Thomas 09Connor a cashieros check

for $19,851.36. Defendant Thomas OOConnor used this money to pay

off the balance due on the $30,000 loan that he had obtained in

1988.

After defendant Thomas OOConnor paid off the $19,851.36

balance on his loan, defendant ROBERT J. PRUIM redeemed the

Certificate of Deposit which had been used to secure the loan.

In or about January 1990, defendant Edward Ho Pruim arranged

for another individual to enter into a sham real estate transaction

with defendant Thomas Ovconnor, in order to make it appear that the

Indiana house owned by defendant Thomas 0° Connor had been purchased

by

the other individual, when in fact no such purchase had been

made. As part of this sham transaction, title to the property was

transferred into the name of the other individual

r

but defendant

Thomas OCConnor maintained possession, custody and control of the

Indiana house. The agreed purchase price for the Indiana house was

approximately $58,000. Those monies were paid by defendants ROBERT

J.

PRUIN and Ech.1Tard H_

Pru:im.

5

On

or-

100n

_J_Vf!

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

defendants ROBERT J 0 PRUIM and Edwa.rd 80 Pruim gave defendant

Thomas ODConnor a. cashierDs check for $29,6810

On or about

February 8, 1990, defendants ROBERT Jo PRUIM and Edward Ho Pruim,

gave defendant Thomas 0 DConnor a cashier Ds check for $29,024016 ,so

that he could payoff a mortgage in that amount which. was

outstanding against the Indiana houseo

Defendants ROBERT J 0 PRUIM, Edward Ho Pruim, and Thomas

o DConnor misrepresented, concealed, and hid, and caused to be

misrepresented, concealed, and hidden, acts done in furtherance of

the scheme described above and the purposes of those actso

In or about April 1989, in the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division, and elsewhere, defendant ROBERT Jo PRUIM, for the

~urpose

of executing the aforesaid scheme, knowingly caused to be

placed in an authorized depository for mail matter, to be delivered

by the Postal Service according to the directions thereon, an

envelope addressed to defendant Thomas ODConnor, at his residence

in Chicago, Illinois, containing a letter from Society Bank, Knox,

Indiana, relating to the release of a mortgage on a house located

on Bass Lake in Indiana which was owned by defendant Thomas

O~Connor,

in violation of 16 U050Co § 13410

(b)

As to Counts Two through Five, defendant ROBERT Jo PRUIM

reaffirms the facts set forth above

r

and further admits that for

the purpose of executing the aforesaid scheme, he knowingly caused

to be placed in an authorized depository for mail matter, to be

delivered

by

the Postal Service according to the directions

thereon~

the following:

6

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

(2) an envelope addressed to defendant Edward Ho pruim, at his

residence in Palos Heights, Illinois, containing a monthly

statement for his American Express charge card, including a charge

for six round trip airplane tickets from Chicago, Illinois to

Orlando, Florida in the sum of $1730, and a charge for a rental car

and accommodations at Disney Village Resort in the sum of $2811;

(3) an envelope addressed to Pruim Development, located in

Palos Heights, Illinois, containing a bank statement for a bank

account in the name of Pruim Development, together with a cancelled

check drawn on that account, in the amount of $3,000, made payable

to cash, signed by the defendant Edward Ho Pruim, and endorsed by

the defendant Thomas OvConnor;

(4)

an envelope addressed to X-L Repair, located in Palos

Heights, Illinois, containing a bank statement for a bank account

in the name of X-L Repair, which reflected a monetary transaction

that occurred on November 30, 1989;

(5) an envelope addressed to X-L Disposal Corpo, located in

crestwood, Illinois, containing a bank statement for a bank account

in the name of X-L Disposal Corpo, together with a cancelled check

drawn on that account, in

th~

aillouut of $3,500, made payable to the

defendant Edward Ho Pruim, and signed

by

the defendant ROBERT Jo

PRUIM; all in violation of 18 UoSoCo § 13410

60

i'or' purposes of applying 'tne guidelines promUlgated

by

t:he united states Sentencing Commission pursuant to Title 28:

united states Code, section

99~v

the

par~ies

agree on the following

points~

7

L-

~

_

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

ao

Pursuant to Guideline § 2Cl07(a), the base offense

level is 100

bo

Pursuant

to

Guideline

§§

2Clo 7 (b) (1) (A),

2F10 1 (b) (1) (H), and 2Clo 1 (Background notes), the base offense

level should be increased by 7 levels based on the amount of the

bribes paid, since the benefit derived from the bribes and the

loss, if any, to the City of Chicago cannot be. accurately

determined, and the bribe paYments were more than $120,000 but did

not exceed $200,0000

Co

Pursuant to Guideline § 301.2, Counts One through

Five should be grouped together into a single group because all of

the Counts involve sUbstantially the same harm;

therefore the

o,ffense level should not be increased as a result of mUltiple

counts 0

do

Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition

and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his

criminal conduct 0 If the government does not receive additional

evidence in conflict with this provision, and if the defendant

continues to accept responsibility for his actions, within the

meaning of Guideline 3Elol, a two-level reduction in the offense

level is appropriate 0

eo Defendant has given the government timely notice of

~1.i5

inbe:ntion to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the

government to avoid preparing for trial and. permitting the court to

allocate its resources efficiently, vJi>chin the meaning of Guideline

3 El.1(bl

G

and has orovided certain

8

~/I"\l

f-ho

rr,Tn;;:f'O-....

nWl~'V'II~

---

--...... -

'7:J

- .. --

,,"4"._4104_

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

,

I

which may provide investigative leads; a 1 'point reduction in the

offense level is therefore appropriate, provided the court

determines the offense level to be 16 or greater prior to the

. operation of Guideline 3E1.1(a).

f.

The offense level therefore is ievel 14.

g.

Based on the facts known to the government, the

defendant's criminal history points equal zero and the defendant's

criminal history category is I.

h.

Based on the calculations set forth above, the

parties agree that defendant's .criminal history category is I, and

the offense level is 14, which results in a guideline range of 15

to 21 months.

i.

The defendant and his attorney and the government

acknowledge that the above calculations are preliminary in nature

and based on facts known to the government as of the time of this

Agreement. The defendant understands that the Probation Department

will conduct its own investigation and that the Court ultimately

determines the facts and law relevant to sentencing,and that the

Court's determinations govern the final Sentencing Guidelines

calculation. Accordingly, the validity of this Agreement is not

contingent upon the probation officer's or the Court's concurrence

with the above calculations.

7.

Errors in calculations or interpretation of any of the

guidelines may be corrected, or amended by either party prior to

sentencing.

The parties may correct these errors or misinter-

pretations either by stipulation or

by

a statement to the probation

9

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

"-'1,',

~

..

~'-,.".

I

,

office and/or court setting forth the disagreement as to the

correct guidelines and their application.

The validity of this

Agreement will not be affected by such corrections, or amendments,

and the defendant shall not have a right to withdraw his plea on

the basis of such corrections or amendments.

8.

Defendant understands the counts to which he will plead

guilty carry the following penalties:

(a)

Counts One through Five each carry a maximum

penalty of 5 years imprisonment, a maximum fine of $ 250,000, and

a term of supervised release of at least 2 and not more than 3

years, as well as any restitution ordered by the Court.

Therefore, the total potential sentence carried under the

counts to which defendant will plead guilty is 25 years

imprisonment and a $1,250,000 fine, a term of supervised release,

as well as any restitution ordered by the Court.

9.

The defendant understands that in accord with federal

law, Title 18, united states Code, Section 3013, upon entry of

jUdgment of conviction, the defendant will be assessed $50 on each

count to which he has pled guilty, in addition to any other penalty

imposed.

The defendant agrees to pay the special assessment of

$~

at the time of sentencing with a check or money order made y,

payable to the Clerk of the U. S. District Court.

10. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty he

surrenders certain rights, including the following:

(a)

If defendant persisted in a plea of not guilty to

the charges against him, he would have the right to a pUblic and

10

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

speedy trial. The trial could be either a jury trial or a trial by

the jUdge sitting without a jury. The defendant has a right to a

jury trial. However, in order that the trial be conducted by the

jUdge sitting without a jury, the defendant, the

government~

and

the jUdge all must agree that the trial be conducted by the jUdge

without a jury.

(b)

If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be

composed of twelve laypersons selected at random.

Defendant and

his attorney would have a say in who the jurors would be by

removing prospective jurors for cause where actual bias or other

disqualification is shown, or without cause by exercising so-called

peremptory challenges.

The jury would have to agree unanimously

before it could return a verdict of either guilty or not guilty.

The jury would be instructed that defendant is presumed innocent,

and that it could not convict him unless, after hearing all the

evidence, it was persuaded of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt and that it was to consider each count of the indictment or

information separately.

(c)

If the trial is held by the judge without a jury,

the jUdge would find the facts and determine, after hearing all the

evidence, and considering each count separately, whether or not the

jUdge was persuaded of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

(d)

At a trial, whether by a jury or a jUdge, the

government would be required to present its witnesses and other

evidence against defendant.

Defendant would be able to confront

those government witnesses and his attorney would be able to cross-

11

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

examine them. In turn, defendant could present witnesses and other

evidence in his own behalf. If the witnesses for defendant would

not appear voluntarily, he could require their attendance through

the subpoena power of the court.

(e)

At a trial, defendant would have a privilege

against self-incrimination so that he could decline to testify, and

no inference of guilt could be drawn from his refusal to testify.

If defendant desired to do so, he could testify in his own behalf.

(f) Defendant understands that he has a right to have

the charges prosecuted by an indictment returned by a concurrence

of twelve or more members of a legally constituted grand jury

consisting of not less than sixteen and not more than twenty-three

members. By signing this Agreement, defendant knowingly waives his

right to be prosecuted by indictment and to assert at trial or on

appeal any defects or errors arising from the information, the

information process, or the fact that he has been prosecuted by way

of information.

11. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty he is

waiving all the rights set forth in the prior paragraph.

Defendant's attorney has explained those rights to him, and the

consequences of his waiver of those rights.

Defendant further

understands he is waiving all appellate issues that might have been

available if he had exercised his right td trial, and only may

appeal the validity of this plea of guilty or the sentence.

12

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

12. Defendant understands that the information in this case

and this Plea Agreement are matters of public record and may be

disclosed to any party.

13. Defendant understands that the united states

Attorney~s

Office will fully apprise the District Court and the united states

Probation Office of the nature, scope and extent of defendant's

conduct regarding the charges against him, and related matters,

including all matters in aggravation and mitigation relevant to the

issue of sentencing. Defendant understands that the government has

the right to seek defendant's truthful testimony before a grand

jury or District Court.

14. This Plea Agreement is governed, in part, by Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 11 (e) (1) (C) •

agreed as follows:

That is, the parties have

(a) The parties have agreed that the sentence imposed by

the Court shall include a term of imprisonment of 15 months in the

custody of the Bureau of Prisons.

(b) The parties have agreed that the sentence imposed by

the Court shall include the paYment of a fine of $1,250,000, with

conditions of paYment as set forth below. The parties have agreed

that an upward departure from the fine guideline range is

warranted, and should be imposed, pursuant to Guideline section

5E1.2, Application Note 4, because a fine within the applicable

fine guideline range would not be sufficient to ensure an adequate

punitive fine. The parties have agreed that the fine will be paid

as follows:

Defendant will pay $1,250,000 in cash to the

13

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

government on the date of sentencing. It is agreed that $750,000

will be placed in an escrow account on or before the date of

. defendant's arraignment. The escrow account will be maintained by

the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District' of Illinois

~

unless the parties agree in writing that the escrow account will be

maintained elsewhere. Defendant will pay the remaining $500,000

into the same escrow account at least three days

p~ior

to the date

of sentencing.

(c) other than the agreed term of incarceration, and the

agreed fine, the Court remains free to impose the sentence it deems

appropriate. If the court accepts and imposes the agreed term of

incarceration and the agreed fine set forth above, the defendant

~ay

not withdraw this plea as a matter of right'under Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(2) and (4).

If, however, the Court

refuses to impose the agreed term of incarceration or the agreed

fine set forth herein, or otherwise refuses to accept the

defendant's plea of guilty, the Agreement shall become null and

void and neither party will be bound thereto.

15. The parties have agreed that the terms of this Plea

Agreement are conditioned upon defendant Edward H. Pruim

I

s entering

into a Plea Agreement with the government, and his entry of a plea

of guilty being accepted by the Court, and is further conditioned

upon defendant Edward H. Pruimis being sentenced upon said Plea

Agreement.

16. Defendant understands that his compliance with each part

of this Plea Agreement extends throughout and beyond the period of

his sentence, and failure to abide by any term of the Plea

Agreement is a violation of the Agreement. He further understands

14

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

that in the event he violates this Agreement, the government, at

its option, may move to vacate the Plea Agreement, rendering it

null and void, and thereafter prosecute the defendant not sUbject

to any of the limits set forth in this Agreement, or to resentence

the defendant. The defendant understands and agrees that in the

event that this Plea Agreement is breached by the defendant, and

the Government elects to void the Plea Agreement and prosecute the

defendant, any prosecutions that are not time-barred by the

applicable statute of limitations on the date of the signing of

this Agreement may be commenced against the defendant in accordance

with this paragraph, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute

of limitations between the signing of this Agreement and the

commencement of such prosecutions.

17. In the event that the defendant is sentenced pursuant to

the terms of this plea agreement, and provided that there is no

sUbsequent breach of the plea agreement, the united states agrees

that it will not seek additional criminal charges, penalties,

fines, or forfeitures against the defendant, ROBERT J. PRUIM, or XL

Disposal Corporation for the events that occurred during 1987

through and including 1990, which occurred in the Northern District

of Illinois and which are described in this plea agreement, namely

the payment of bribes to Thomas 0'Connor. However, nothing in this

Agreement limits the united states. in the prosecution of the

defendant, ROBERT J. PRUIM or X L Disposal in other districts or

for criminal conduct which is not disclosed in this plea agreement.

15

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

,.. I'

18. Defendant and his attorney acknowledge that no threats,

promises, or representations have been made, nor agreements

reached, other than those set forth in this Agreement, to cause

defendant to plead guilty.

19. Defendant agrees this Plea Agreement shall be filed and

become a part of the record in this case.

20. Defendant acknowledges that he has read this Agreement

and carefully reviewed each provision with his attorney. Defendant

further acknowledges that he understands and voluntarily accepts

each and every term and condition of this Agreement.

AGREED THIS DATE:

,

~

4.·~~

JA UENE STERN

A~~~

states Attorney

STEVEN A. MILLER

Assistant united States Attorney

16

CHARLES B. SKLARSKY

Attorney for Defendant

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FILED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

EDWARD H. PRUIM

)

)

)

)

,)

PLEA AGREEMENT

$fP

~

4 1993

This Plea Agreement between the United States Attorney for the

Northern District of Illinois, MICHAEL J. SHEPARD, and the

defendant, EDWARD H. PRUIM, and his attorneys, JEFFREY B. STEINBACK

and CHARLES B. SKLARSKY, is made pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure and is governed in part by Rule

11(e) (1) (C), as more fully set forth in Paragraph 14, below.

This Plea Agreement is entirely voluntary and represents the

entire agreement between the United States Attorney and defendant

regarding defendant's criminal liability.

This Plea Agreement concerns criminal liability only, and

nothing herein shall limit or in any way waive or release any

administrative or jUdicial civil claim, demand or cause of action,

Whatsoever, of the United States or its agencies. Moreover, this

Agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the

Northern District of Illinois and cannot bind any other federal,

state or

local prosecuting,

administrative or regulatory

authorities except as expressly set forth in this Agreement.

By this Plea Agreement, MICHAEL J. SHEPARD, United States

Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and the defendant,

p

fI

r;)..

~

), '1-

I

/"\

/

I

!

I

I

U

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

EDWARD H. PRUIM, and his attorneys, JEFFREY B. STEINBACK and

CHARLES B. SKLARSKY, have agreed upon the following:

1.

Defendant acknowledges that he has been charged in the

information in this case with five counts of mail fraud, in

violation of Title 18, united States Code, Section 1341.

2.

Defendant has read the charges against him contained in

the information, and those charges have been fully explained to him

by his attorney.

3.

Defendant fully understands the nature and elements of

the crimes with which he has "been charged.

4.

Defendant will enter a voluntary plea of guilty to Counts

One through Five, inclusive, of the information in this case.

5.

Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty

of the charges contained in Counts One through Five, inclusive, of

the information in this case. In pleading guilty, defendant admits

the following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond

a reasonable doubt:

(a) (1) With respect to Count One of the information,

beginning in or about December 1988 and continuing until in or

about June 1991, at Chicago and Crestwood, and elsewhere, in the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, defendants EDWARD

H. PRUIM, Robert J. Pruim, and Thomas O'Connor, devised, intended

to devise, and participated in a scheme to defraud the city of

Chicago, by depriving the City of Chicago of defendant THOMAS

O'CONNOR's honest services by means of false and fraudulent

representations, pretenses, and promises.

2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

I

'

Defendants 'EDWARD H. PRUIM and Robert J. Pruim gave and

promised to give defendant Thomas O'Connor cash, property, loans,

and other things of value, totalling at least $150,000, in order to

influence defendant Thomas O'Connor in the performance of acts

related to his emploYment with the City of Chicago.

Defendant Thomas O'Connor promised to use his position, and

did use his position, as an employee of the City of Chicago to aid

and assist defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM.and Robert J. Pruim and their

company XL Disposal in their business dealings with the City of

Chicago.

Defendant Thomas O'Connor promised to provide, and did

provide information gained in his position as General Foreman of

Dumps to his co-schemers on matters that he thought would be useful

-to their business and business dealings with the City of Chicago.

In addition, defendant Thomas O'Connor promised to take any action

that he could, and did engage in various actions to help out his

co-schemers in their business dealings with the City of Chicago.

Throughout the year of 1989, defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM and

Robert J. Pruim gave defendant Thomas O'Connor cash bribes in the

amount of $500 on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, resulting in bribe

paYments of at least $20,000.

In addition, defendant EDWARD H.

PRUIM admits that the government's evidence would show that for at

least six months during 1988, defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM and Robert

Jo Pruim gave defendant Thomas O'Connor cash bribes in the amount

of $500 on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, resulting in bribe paYments

of at least $10,000. Defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM further admits that

3

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

in

April 1988, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM gave defendant Thomas

O'Connor approximately $9000 so that he could purchase a boat.

During the first six months of 1990, defendants EDWARD H.

PRUIM

and Robert J. Pruim gave defendant Thomas 0'Connor cash

bribes in the amount of $500 every two or three weeks, resulting in

payments of at least $3000. During June, July, and August of 1990,

defendants EDWARD

H.

PRUIM and Robert J. Pruim gave defendant

Thomas O'Connor cash bribes, resulting in payments of $3000.

On or about December 9, 1988, defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM and

Robert J. Pruim purchased a $30,000 Certificate of Deposit, which

they posted as collateral on behalf of defendant Thomas O'Connor,

so that he could obtain a. $30,000 personal bank loan.

After

defendant Thomas O'Connor obtained the $30,000 loan, he used the

money to purchase the house located on Bass Lake in Indiana that he

wanted to buy.

Throughout 1989, defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM and Robert J.

Pruim gave defendant Thomas 0'Connor $1000 a month in cash,

totalling approximately $12,000, which defendent Thomas O'Connor

used to make monthly payments on the $30,000 loan described above.

In 1989, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM helped pay for a trip to

Disneyland in Florida for defendant Thomas O'Connor and his family.

Defendant EDWARD H. PRUIN paid for six round trip airplane 'tickets

from Chicago, Illinois to Orlando, Florida for defendant Thomas

O'Connor and his family.

Defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM also paid for

a rental car, Disneyland passes, and accommodations at Disney

Village Resort.

The total cost was approximately $4100.

4

In

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

addition, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM gave defendant Thomas O'Connor

a $3,000 check made out to cash, for use in connection with the

trip to Florida.

On or about November 30, 1989, defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM and

Robert J. Pruim

gave defendant Thomas 0'Connor a $3,000 cash

bribe.

Defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM and Robert J. Pruim gave

defendant Thomas O'Connor a check in the

amoun~

of $3500, which was

drawn on an account belonging to X L Disposal.

Defendant Thomas

O'Connor obtained $3000 cash by depositing the $3500 check into a

bank account maintained in the name of X-L Repair, and receiving

$3000 back from the deposit. Defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM signed a

deposit slip authorizing the split deposit.

On or about January 5, 1990, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM entered

into a sham real estate contract with defendant Thomas O'Connor, in

an attempt to make it appear that the house owned by defendant

Thomas 0'Connor located on Bass Lake in Indiana (hereinafter

referred to as the "Indiana house") was under contract to be sold,

when in fact, no legitimate agreement to purchase or sell the

Indiana house existed.

On or about January 23, 1990,. defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM and

Robert J. Pruim gave defendant Thomas O'Connor a cashier's check

for $19,851.36. Defendant Thomas O'Connor used this money to pay

off the balance due on the $30,000 loan that he had obtained in

1988.

After defendant Thomas O'Connor paid off the $19,851.36

balance on his loan, defendant Robert J. Pruim redeemed the

certificate of Deposit which had been used to secure the loan.

5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

In or about January 1990, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM arranged

.1',

for another individual to enter into a sham real estate transaction

with defendant Thomas O'Connor, in order to make it appear that the

Indiana house owned by defendant Thomas O'Connor had been purchased

by the other individual, when in fact no such purchase had been

made. As part of this sham transaction, title to the property was

transferred into the name of the other individual, but defendant

Thomas O'Connor maintained possession, custody and control of the

Indiana house. The agreed purchase price for the Indiana house was

approximately $58,000. Those monies were paid by defendants EDWARD

H. PRUIM and Robert J. Pruim.

On or about January 31, 1990,

defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM and Robert J. Pruim gave defendant

Thomas 0'Connor a cashier's check for $29,681.

On or about

February 8, 1990, defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM and Robert J. Pruim,

gave defendant Thomas O'Connor a cashier's check for $29,024.16, so

that he could payoff a mortgage in that amount which was

outstanding against the Indiana house.

On August 25, 1990, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM promised to pay

$30,000 to defendant Thomas O'Connor.

Defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM

and defendant Thomas O'Connor decided that the Indiana house would

be sold, and the proceeds would be split between them. Defendant

EDWARD H. PRUIM promised that defendant Thomas 0'Connor would

receive $30,000 from the proceeds. Shortly thereafter, defendant

EDWARD H. PRUIM suggested postponing the sale of the Indiana house

in order to prevent detection of their corrupt activities, but

offered to give defendant Thomas O'Connor $10,000 in cash, as an

6

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

advance on monies that defendant Thomas O'Connor would receive from

the proceeds on the sale of the Indiana house.

That $10,000 was

paid as described below:

On September 11, 1990, defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM and

Robert J. Pruim gave defendant Thomas O'Connor $3,000 in cash, as

partial payment of the $10,000. Defendant Robert J. Pruim delivered

the cash to defendant Thomas O'Connor's home, at approximately 10

0'clock at night.

Defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM arranged for the

$3,000 bribe payment to be made, and sUbsequently confirmed that

defendant Robert J. Pruim had met with defendant Thomas O'Connor as

arranged.

On September 12, 1990, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM

stated that he needed another day to get more cash because they had

to trickle the money through their accounts.

On September 14, 1990, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM gave

defendant Thomas 0'Connor $ 2 , 000 in cash.

Defendant EDWARD H.

PRUIM explained that installment payments were being made in order

to make it harder to trace the money.

On September 20, 1990, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM gave

defendant Thomas O'Connor $2,000-in cash.

On September 28, 1990, defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM and

Robert J. Pruim gave defendant Thomas O'Connor $2,000 in cash.

On October 18, 1990, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIN gave

defendant Thomas O'Connor $1,000 in cash as the final payment of

the $10,000 bribe that had been promised to him on September 5,

1990.

7

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

On June 18, 1991, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM told FBI agents

that he had never paid bribes to any City of Chicago employee. In

addition, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM falsely claimed that the sale

of the Indiana house was a legitimate sale, and that he had loaned

money to the purchaser, when in fact defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM knew

that the purchaser was not actually buying the house or paying for

it.

Defendants EDWARD H. PRUIM, Robert J. Pruim, and Thomas

0'Connor misrepresented, concealed, and hid, and caused to be

misrepresented, concealed, and hidden, acts done in furtherance of

the scheme described above and the purposes of those acts.

In or about April 1989, in the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division, and elsewhere, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM, for the

purpose of executing the aforesaid scheme, knowingly caused to be

placed in an authorized depository for mail matter, to be delivered

by the Postal Service according to the directions thereon, an

envelope addressed to defendant Thomas O'Connor, at his residence

in Chicago, Illinois, containing a letter from Society Bank, Knox,

Indiana, relating to the release of a mortgage on a house located

on Bass Lake in Indiana which was owned by defendant Thomas

O'Connor, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341.

(b)

As to Counts Two through Five, defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM

reaffirms the facts set forth 'above, and further admits that for

the purpose of executing the aforesaid scheme, he knowingly caused

to be placed in an authorized depository for mail matter, to be

8

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

by the Postal Service according to the directions

thereon, the following:

,(2)

an envelope addressed to defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM, at his

residence in Palos Heights, Illinois, containing a monthly

statement for his American Express charge card, including a charge

for six round trip airplane tickets from Chicago, Illinois to

orlando, Florida in the sum of $1730, and a charge for a rental car

and accommodations at Disney Village Resort in the sum of $2811;

(3) an envelope addressed to Pruim Development" 'located in

Palos Heights, Illinois, containing a bank statement for a bank

account in the name of Pruim Development, together with a cancelled

check drawn on that account, in the amount of $3,000, made payable

to cash, signed by the defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM, and endorsed by

the defendant Thomas O'Connor;

(4)

an envelope addressed to X-L Repair, located in Palos

Heights, Illinois, containing a bank statement for a bank account

in the name of X-L Repair, which reflected a monetary transaction

that occurred on November 30, 1989;

(5) an envelope addressed to X-L Disposal Corp., located in

Crestwood, Illinois, containing a bank statement for a bank account

in

th~name

of X-L Disposal Corp., together with a cancelled check

drawn on that account, in the amount of $3,500, made payable to the

defendant EDWARD H. PRUIM, and signed by the defendant Robert J.

Pruim; all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341.

6.

For purposes of applying the guidelines promulgated by

the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to Title 28,

9

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

states Code, section 994, the parties agree on the following

points:

a.

Pursuant to Guideline § 2C1.7(a), the base offense

level is 10.

b.

Pursuant

to

Guideline

§§

2Cl.7 (b) (1) (A),

2Fl.l(b)(1)(H), and 2C1.1 (Background-notes), the base offense

level should be increased by 7 levels baseq on the amount of the

bribes paid, since the benefit derived from the bribes and the

loss, if any, to the City of Chicago cannot be accurately

determined, and the bribe paYments were more than $120,000 but did

not exceed $200,000.

c.

Pursuant to Guideline § 301.2, Counts One through

Five should be grouped together into a single group because all of

'the Counts involve SUbstantially the same harm;

therefore the

offense level should not be increased as a result of mUltiple

counts.

d.

Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition

and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his

criminal conduct. If the government does not receive additional

evidence in conflict with this provision, and if the defendant

continues to accept responsibility for his actions, within the

meaning of Guideline 3El.l, a two-level reduction in the offense

level is appropriate.

e. Defendant has given the government timely notice of

his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the

government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the-court to

10

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

allocate its resources efficiently, within the meaning of Guideline

3 El.l(b), and has provided certain information to the government

which may provide investigative leadsia 1 point reduction in the

offense level is therefore appropriate, provided the court

determines the offense level to be 16 or greater prior to the

operation of Guideline 3El.l(a).

f.

The offense level therefore is level 14.

g.

Based on the facts known to the government, the

defendant's criminal history points equal zero and the defendant's

criminal history category is I.

h.

Based on the calculations set forth above, the

parties agree that defendant's criminal history category is I, and

the offense level is 14, which results in a guideline range of 15

to 21 months.

i.

The defendant and his attorney and the government

acknowledge that the above calculations are preliminary in nature

and based on facts known to the government as of the time of this

Agreement. The defendant understands that the Probation Department

will conduct its own investigation and that the Court ultimately

determines the facts and law relevant to sentencing, and that the

Court's determinations govern the final Sentencing Guidelines

calculation. Accordingly, the validity of this Agreement is not

contingent upon the probation officer's or the Court's concurrence

with the above calcUlations.

7.

Errors in calculations or interpretation of any of the

guidelines may be corrected, or amended by either party prior to

11

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

---

sentencing.

The parties may correct these errors or misinter-

pretations either by stipulation or by a statement to the probation

office and/or court setting forth the disagreement as to the

correct guidelines and their application.

The validity of this

Agreement will not be affected by such corrections, or amendments,

and the defendant shall not have a right to withdraw his plea on

the basis of such corrections or amendments.

8.

Defendant understands the counts to which he will plead

guilty carry the following penalties:

(a)

Counts One through Five each carry a maximum

penalty of 5 years imprisonment, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a

term of supervised release of at least 2 and not more than 3 years,

as well as any restitution ordered by the Court.

Therefore, the total potential sentence carried under the

counts to which defendant will plead guilty is 25 years

imprisonment and a $1,250,000 fine, a term of supervised release,

as well as any restitution ordered by the Court.

9.

The defendant understands that in accord with federal

law, Title 18, united states Code, Section 3013, upon entry of

jUdgment of conviction, the defendant will be assessed $50 on each

count to which he has pled guilty, in addition to any other penalty

imposed.

The defendant agrees to pay the special assessment of

~

$~

at the time of sentencing with a check or money order made

~

payable to the Clerk of the U. S. District Court.

10. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty he

surrenders certain rights, including the following:

12

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

(a)

If defendant persisted in a plea of not guilty to

the charges against him, he would have the right to a pUblic and

speedy trial.. The trial could be either a jury trial or a trial by

the jUdge sitting without a jury. The defendant has a right to a

jury trial. However, in order that the trial be conducted by the

jUdge sitting without a jury, the defendant, the government, and

the judge all must agree that the trial be conducted by the jUdge

without a jury.

(b)

If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be

composed of twelve laypersons selected at random.

Defendant and

his attorney would have a say in who the jurors would be by

removing prospective jurors for cause where actual bias or other

disqualification is shown, or without cause by exercising so-called

peremptory challenges.

The jury would have to agree unanimously

before it could return a verdict of either guilty or not guilty.

The jury would be instructed that defendant is presumed innocent,

and that it could not convict him unless, after hearing all the

evidence, it was persuaded of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt and that it was to consider each count of the indictment or

information separately.

(c)

If the trial is held by the judge without a jury,

the jUdge would find the facts and determine, after hearing all the

evidence, and considering each count separately, whether or not the

judge was persuaded of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

(d)

At a trial, whether by a jury or a jUdge, the

government would be required to present its witnesses and other

13

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

evidence against defendant.

Defendant would be able to confront

those government witnesses and his attorney would be able to cross-

examine them. In turn, defendant could present witnesses and other

evidence in his own behalf. If the witnesses for defendant would

not appear voluntarily, he could require their attendance through

the subpoena power of the court.

(e)

At a trial, defendant would have a privilege

against self-incrimination so that he could decline to testify, and

. no inference of guilt could be drawn from his refusal to testify.

If defendant desired to do so, he could testify in his own behalf.

(f) Defendant understands that he has a right to have

the charges prosecuted by an indictment returned by a concurrence

of twelve or more members of a legally constituted grand jury

consisting of not less than sixteen and not more than twenty-three

members. By signing this Agreement, defendant knowingly waives his

right to be prosecuted by indictment and to assert at trial or on

appeal any defects or errors arising from the information, the

information process, or the fact that he has been prosecuted by way

of information.

11. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty he is

waiving all the rights set forth in the prior paragraph.

Defendant's attorney has explained those rights to him, and the

consequences of his waiver of those rights.

Defendant further

understands he is waiving all appellate issues that might have been

available if he had exercised his right to trial, and only may

appeal the validity of this plea of guilty or the sentence.

14

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

12.

K...

-Cj

Defendant understands that the information in this case

and this Plea Agreement are matters of pUblic record and may be

disclosed to any party.

13. Defendant understands that the United states Attorney's

Office will fully apprise the District Court and the United states

Probation Office of the nature, scope and extent of defendant's

conduct regarding the charges against him, and related matters,

including all matters in aggravation and mitigation relevant to the

issue of sentencing. Defendant understands that the governmnet has

the right to seek defendant's truthful testimony before a grand

jury or District Court.

14. This Plea Agreement is governed, in part,. by Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C).

That is, the parties have

agreed as follows:

(a) The parties have agreed that the sentence imposed by

the Court shall include a term of imprisonment of 21 months in the

custody of the Bureau of Prisons.

(b) The parties have agreed that the sentence imposed by

the Court shall include the paYment of a fine of $1,250,000, with

conditions of paYment as set forth below. The parties have agreed

that an upward departure from the fine guideline range is

warranted, and should be imposed, pursuant to Guideline Section

5E1.2, Application Note 4, because a fine within the applicable

fine guideline range would not be sufficient to ensure an adequate

punitive fine. The parties have agreed that the fine will be paid

as follows:

Defendant will pay $1,250,000 in cash to the

15

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

government on the date of sentencing. It is agreed that $750,000

will be placed in an escrow account on or before the date of

defendantOs arraignment. The escrow account will be maintained by

the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

unless the parties agree in writing that the escrow account will be

,

maintained elsewhere. Defendant will pay the remaining $500,000

into the same escrow account at least three days prior. to the date

of sentencing.

(c) other than the agreed term of incarceration, and the

agreed fine, the Court remains free to impose the sentence it deems

appropriate. If the Court accepts and imposes the agreed term of

incarceration and the agreed fine set forth above, the defendant

may not withdraw this plea as a matter of right under Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 11(e) (2) and (4).

If, however, the Court

refuses to impose the agreed term of incarceration or the agreed

fine set forth herein, or otherwise refuses to accept the

defendant's plea of guilty, the Agreement shall become null and

void and neither party will be bound thereto.

15. The parties have agreed that the terms of this Plea

Agreement are conditioned upon defendant Robert J. Pruimos entering

into a Plea Agreement with the government, and his entry of a plea

of guilty being accepted by the Court, and is further conditioned

upon defendant Robert J. Pruimos being sentenced upon said Plea

Agreement.

16. At the time of sentencing, defendant EDWARD

H.

PRUIM will

request that the Court postpone his surrender date for

incarceration until after his brother defendant Robert J. Pruim has

completed his sentence of incarceration.

16

The government will not

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

..

~

object to the Court's granting the defendant's request for a

delayed surrender date, pursuant to § 3143(a}, for a reasonable

period of time. The government will take no position on what

constitutes a reasonable period of time under the circumstances of

this case.

17. Defendant understands that his compliance with each part

of this Plea Agreement extends throughout and beyond the period of

his sentence, and failure to abide by any term of the Plea

Agreement is a violation of the Agreement. He further understands

that in the event he violates this Agreement, the government, at

its option, may move to vacate the Plea Agreement, rendering it

null and void, and thereafter prosecute the defendant not sUbject

to any of the limits set forth in this Agreement, or to resentence

the defendant. The defendant understands and agrees that in the

event that this Plea Agreement is breached by the defendant, and

the Government elects to void the Plea Agreement and prosecute the

defendant, any prosecutions that are not time-barred by the

applicable statute of limitations on the date of the signing of

this Agreement may be commenced against the defendant in accordance

with this paragraph, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute

of limitations between the signing of this Agreement and the

commencement of such prosecutions.

180 In the event that the defendant is sentenced

pu~suant

to

the terms of this plea agreement, and provided that there is no

subsequent breach of the plea agreement, the United states agrees

that it will not seek additional criminal charges, penalties,

17

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008

---

fines, or forfeitures against the defendant, EDWARD

fl.

PRUIM, or XL

Disposal Corporation for the events that occurred during 1987

through and including 1990, which occurred in the Northern District

of Illinois and which are described in this plea agreement, namely

the payment of bribes to Thomas O'Connor. However, nothing in this

Agreement limits the united States in the prosecution of the

defendant, EDWARD H. PRUIM or X L Disposal in other districts or

for criminal conduct which is not disclosed in this plea agreement.

19. Defendant and his attorney acknowledge that no threats,

promises, or representations have been made, nor agreements

reached, other than those set forth in this Agreement, to cause

defendant to plead guilty.

20. Defendant agrees this Plea Agreement shall be filed and

become a part of the record in this case.

21. Defendant acknowledges that he has read this Agreement

and carefully reviewed each provision with his attorney. Defendant

further acknowledges that he understands and voluntarily accepts

each and every term and condition of this Agreement.

States Attorney

J~~

FREY B. STEINBACK

..,

At~~iney

for Defendant

CHARLES B. SKLARSKY

Attorney for Defendant

'EDWARD H. PRUIM

Defendant

0Lj~J

Attorney

AGREED THIS DATE:

18

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 23, 2008