SPEEDY GONZALEZ LANDSCAPING,
    INC.,
    Complainant,
    Respondents.
    v.
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARDRECEIV
    CLERK'S
    OFF'~EO
    CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT
    )
    AU
    n
    0 '
    OF ENVIRONMENT,)
    b 6
    2007
    )
    STATE OF
    ILLINOI
    )
    Site Code:03 16485 I03
    Pollution Control
    Boa~r;
    )
    AC: 2006-039
    )
    (CDOE No. 06-02-AC)
    )
    )
    )
    )
    NOTICE OF FILING
    TO: Mr. Bradley P. Halloran
    lIlinois Pollution Control Board
    100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
    Chicago, lIlinois 6060 I
    Ms. Jennifer
    A.
    Burke
    City
    of Chicago, Dept. of Law
    30 North La Salle Street, Suite 900
    Chicago, lIlinois 60602
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have this day filed with the Clerk
    ofthe lIlinois Pollution
    Control Board, Respondent's Post-Hearing
    Brief and Motion for Leave to File Post-Hearing
    Brief Instanter. Dated at Chicago, lIlinois, thO
    th day of August, 2007.
    Jeffrey
    J. Levine, P.c. #17295
    20 North Clark Street, Suite 800
    Chicago, lIlinois 60602
    (312) 372-4600
    PROOF OF SERVICE
    The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he served a copy of
    the Notice together with the above mentioned documents to the person to whom said Notice is
    directed, this 6
    th
    day of August, 2007.
    1. LEVINE, P.C.
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    B~C
    E I V E 0
    CLERK'S OFFICE
    CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT
    )
    OF ENVIRONMENT,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    )
    SPEEDY GONZALEZ LANDSCAPING,
    )
    INC.,
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    AUG 052007
    STATE OF ILLINOIS
    Site Code:03164851 03Pollution Control Board
    AC: 2006-039
    (CDOE No. 06-02-AC)
    MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-HEARING BRIEF INSTANTER
    Now comes the Respondent, SPEEDY GONZALEZ LANDSCAPING, INC., by and through
    its counsel Jeffrey
    1.
    Levine, P.c., and for its Motion for Leave to File Post-Hearing Brieflnstanter,
    states and asserts as follows:
    I. Respondent'sbriefwas due on Friday, August
    3, 2007, and counsel for Respondent sought
    to complete and file all pleadings in all the related matters
    by that date.
    3. Counsel could not complete all pleadings by that date, as he was required to prosecute for
    a municipality on Friday afternoon. Said counsel did not wish to file the pleadings in part.
    Respondent therefore seeks to file his Post-Hearing Brief and the related pleadings instanter.
    4. Counsel for Complainant has no objection to the instant Motion as long as adequate time
    for the filing
    of the Reply is provided.
    Wherefore, for the above and forgoing reasons, Respondent Speedy Gonzalez Landscaping,
    Inc., prays that it be granted leave to file its Post-Hearing Briefand other pleadings instanter and for
    such further relief as is just and equitable.
    Jeffrey
    J. Levine, P.c. #17295
    20 North Clark Street, Suite 800
    Chicago, lllinois 60602
    (312) 372-4600
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARIAECEIVED
    CLERK'S OFFICE
    CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT
    )
    OF
    ENVIR()NMENT,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    )
    SPEEDY GONZALEZ LANDSCAPING,
    )
    INC.,
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    Site Code:03l64851
    03
    AC: 2006-039
    (CDOE No. 06-02-AC)
    AUG 0 52007
    STATE OF ILLINOIS
    Pollution Control Board
    SPEEDY GONZALEZ LANDSCAPING, INC.'S POST HEARING BRIEF
    Now comes the Respondent, SPEEDY GONZALEZ LANDSCAPING, INC., by and
    through
    it's counsel Jeffrey J. Levine, P.C., and for its Post Hearing Brief, states and asserts as
    follows:
    1. Complainant'sprosecution ofRespondent Speedy Gonzalez Landscaping, Inc., offered no
    evidence that this respondent was in any way responsible for committing any violations.
    Complainant's witness, Rafael Maciel, a senior environmental inspector (May 9. 2007, Tr. 7),
    testified that he had no knowledge or information whether Respondent Speedy Gonzalez
    Landscaping, Inc., caused or allowed any
    of the alleged violations. May 9. 2007, Tr. 41-2,152-55.
    2. The alleged violations also contained baseless allegations regarding securing the property,
    salt unloading operations,
    ACM or asbestos, was.te next to residential homes and oil flowing into the
    sewer. May
    9. 2007, Tf. 68, 129-32. Macial contended that these charges were put into his
    investigative report because Respondent Speedy Gonzalez Landscaping, Inc., committed the
    additional offenses (May 9. 2007, Tf. 130), but he had no evidence that the offenses occurred. May
    9.2007, Tf. 68, 129-32.
    3. Complainant offered no other witnesses against Respondent Speedy Gonzalez
    Landscaping, Inc. Mr. Maciel concluded that he had "no idea" why the violations were charged when
    there was no basis for them. May
    9.2007, Tr. 132.
    4. Counsel for Complainant is left to argue that the truck trailers stored on the property
    revealed evidence
    ofa potential future violation. Mr. Gonzalez testified that the tanker requires eight
    thousand dollars to pass DOT inspection so it is being stored at the lot. (May
    9. 2007, Tr. 201).
    Complaint argues that the tanker lacked value or re-use value and therefore constituted "discarded
    material". See: Complainant'sPost Hearing Briefat
    p. 3. The testimony reveals that the tanker could
    be fixed, however it is stored pending a decision. (May
    9.2007, Tr. 201). Complainants argue that
    this tanker and a flatbed truck reveal this Respondents access and control over the site.
    See: Complainant's Post Hearing Brief at
    p. 4. Finally, Complainants argue that the assertion by
    Macial that landscaping waste was present also reveals Respondents access and control over the site.
    See: Complainant's Post Hearing Brief at
    p. 4.
    In
    a skip in logic, Complainants argue that a waste
    generator can be liable for "causing or allowing" open dumping. Id. However, no evidence was
    presented that Respondent Speedy Gonzalez Landscaping, Inc., generated any waste.
    5. As no evidence against Respondent has been presented, and the record reveals baseless
    charges, the next logical inquiry is to determine whether the allegations made were as a result of a
    mistake or confusion as to the parties. This can be ruled out as numerous charges, such as those
    of
    salt unloading operations, asbestos, waste next to residential homes and oil flowing into sewers, are
    completely baseless allegations. There are no residential homes near the property, there was no salt
    or asbestos, there are no sewers on the property.
    6.
    In
    this instance, the baseless allegations are combined with inconsistent and the patently
    false testimony
    ofthe inspector, Rafael Maciel. This false testimony, from the only witness presented
    by Complainant, is evident by reviewing three issues; I) Maciel'stestimony regarding whether the
    trucks were dumping on or cleaning the property, 2) his testimony regarding taking bribes, and 3)
    his claim regarding his FBI training.
    Trucks were cleaning property
    7. Maciel maintained at the hearing that the trucks
    on site were dumping material. May 9.
    2007, R. 42, 72, 74, 78. He later testified that he assumed this. May 9, 2007, Tr. 137. Mr. Macial
    initially testified that he could not determine whether trucks were loading or unloading at the site.
    May 9. 2007, Tr.
    16. He testified that he concluded that another entity'strucks were dumping at the
    site. May
    9.2007, Tr. 72, 74. This conclusion is contrary to his report, (May 9.2007, Tr. 43, 46-7),
    and his prior deposition testimony wherein he testified that the trucks were loading. May 9, 2007,
    Tr. 74-6.
    8. Maciel testified that he would impound a truck ifit was dumping but did not impound the
    E. King trucks on the lot. May 9, 2007, Tr. 48. Neither Macial or anyone else saw trucks dumping.
    May
    9, 2007, Tr. 81. He agreed that he testified both at the hearing and at his deposition that, rather
    than loads being dumped, the material was being removed and that the trucks were loading. May 9,
    2007, Tr. 138. He then testified that a worker told him that
    "We're bringing it here."May 9, 2007,
    Tr. 141, line 6. He then testified
    "1 don'trecall ifhe did say that or not." May 9, 2007, Tr. 141, line
    12.
    9. Macial concluded that the assumption he made, that the trucks were unloading, did not
    make sense. May 9, 2007, Tr. 146, lines 10-1. At the site, Mr. Gonzalez told Macial that the workers
    were cleaning the yard and Macial agreed that he had watched the site for three days to see
    if debris
    was coming into the yard. May 9, 2007, Tr. 193.
    10. Portions of the material being cleaned was segregated so that the
    em
    landfill would
    accept the debris and to minimize the cost
    of disposal. May 9, 2007, Tr. 202-03. After appearing at
    the site the investigators allowed the entities to conclude the clean-up. May 9, 2007, Tr. 204.
    Request for bribe
    II. Mr. Macial testified that he tells certain individuals that he could help them avoid
    citations. May
    9, 2007, Tr. 126. He would say "Help me help you avoid a citation." May 9, 2007,
    Tr. 127. He then testified that based upon his credibility, he was pretty sure that he had never taken
    a bribe. See: May 9, 2007, Tr. 124-27. He denied that he ever discussed helping Mr. Gonzalez avoid
    a citation. May 9, 2007, Tr. 127.
    12. However, Mr. Gonzalez testified that he interpreted Mr. Macial
    'sprior offer to "work it
    out" as a request for a bribe. May
    9, 2007, Tr. 180-83. Gonzales testified that when he refused to pay
    Macial, the inspector responded "All right. You'll pay for this." May 9, 2007, Tr. 182.
    13. At the site Macial promised to ticket Mr. Gonzalez's landscaping company (which he
    believed was performing contract work for the CTA), telling him: "Oh,
    I'll
    see to it that you never
    get work from the CTA again. See: AC 06-39, May 9, 2007, Tr. 204. Maciel ticketed Mr. Gonzalez,
    and his landscaping company, but issued no tickets to the CTA, Paschen Construction or E. King.
    He told Gonzalez
    " ...we'regoing to write you a ticket for everything I could write you a ticket on."
    May 9, 2007,
    Tr.193.
    FBI training
    14. If there was any question of Mr. Maciel's false testimony, one need only review his
    testimony with reference to his claimed training by the FBI regarding his ability to tell
    if someone
    was telling a lie. May 9, 2007, Tr. 116-24. Maciel could not give any specifics related to the alleged
    class that he attended. He didn'trecall the name
    of the course, the name ofthe teacher, the address
    of the course, and concluded that he paid for the course with a money order. He denied that vague
    answers were an indication
    of someone not telling the truth. May 9, 2007, Tr. 121. (In the next
    hearing, however, he agreed that lack ofspecificity could be an indicator or whether or not someone
    was telling the truth. See: AC 06-40, May
    9, 2007, Tr. 57.)
    IS. This embarrassing testimony was contrary to his testimony given under oath in his
    deposition wherein he was asked about all his training, but never mentioned the claimed
    FBI
    training. Macial agreed that he had failed to provide the information regarding his
    FBI
    training, when
    he was asked about his training at his deposition
    as "he only gave information that he thought was
    pertinent". May
    9, 2007, Tr. 118. (In the next hearing, Macial testified that the identification of
    witnesses on site were not included in his investigation report because he was taught to leave out
    non-pertinent information. See: AC 06-40, May
    9, 2007, Tr. 50-I).
    Conclusion
    16. Complainant no evidence that this respondent was in any way responsible for committing
    any violations. The violations also charged regarding securing the property, salt unloading
    operations, ACM or asbestos, waste next to residential homes and oil flowing into the sewer. The
    baseless allegations were not made as a result
    ofa mistake or confusion. Macial testified that he tells
    certain individuals that he could help them avoid citations. Mr. Gonzalez interpreted Mr. Macial's
    offer to "work it out" as a request for a bribe. Gonzales testified that when he refused to pay Macial,
    the inspector responded "All right. You'll pay for this."
    17. As Macial promised he would, he wrote a tickets to Gonzalez and his companies for
    everything he could think of, but issued no tickets to the CTA, Paschen Construction or
    E. King.
    Mr. Maciel, Complainant's only witness, gave false testimony. The instant baseless charges are
    based on Macials false claim that trucks were dumping at the site but logically represent an attempt
    at reprisals for
    Mr. Gonzalez's failure to "work it out" to Macial'ssatisfaction. The prosecution is
    nothing more than the result
    of an ugly reprisal taken to the extreme.
    Wherefore, for the above and forgoing reasons, Respondent Speedy Gonzalez Landscaping,
    Inc., prays that the Illinois Pollution Control Board dismiss Complainant'sAdministrative Citation
    and for such further relief as it deems just and equitable.
    J.
    vine, P.C.
    y for Respondent
    Gonzalez Landscaping, Inc.
    Jeffrey
    J. Levine, P.C. #17295
    20 North Clark Street, Suite 800
    Chicago, Illinois 60602
    (312) 372-4600

    Back to top