NOTICE
OCT
7:2008
COntrol
To:
Clerk
illinois
Pollution
Control Board
100
West
Randolph
Street
Suite
1150O
Chicago,
illinois
60601
Attorney
for Respondent
James
M,
Knox
121
IV,
Chestnut,
#3104
Chicago, Illinois 60610
Bradley P.
Halloran
Hearing
Officer
James R.
Thompson Center;
Suite 11-500
100
West
Randolph Street
Chicago,
illinois 60601
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that I
have today
filed
with
the Office of
the
Clerk
of the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
a
RESPONSE
to Motion
to
Dismiss and
AFFIDAVIT
OF
SERVICE
a
copy
of
which
is
herewith
served
(woO
the assigoed
Rearing
Officer,
the
Resnondent, and
the
Respondent ‘s Attorney.
Dated:
October
7,
2008
1630
IV.
33rd Place
Chicago, Illinois 60608-6202
773.744.1954
EN TIlE
MAflER BEFORE
TilE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
KYLE NASH,
)
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
)
KAREN SOKOLOWSKJ,
)
)
Respondent
)
)
PCB
07-96
(Citizens
Enforcement
— Noise)
Pro
Sc
ED
OCT
72OQ8
PARAGRAPH
1
of the Respondent’s
Motion
to Dismiss, by and through
her
attcIte
James
M. Knox, in
part, states:
... this matter has
a long history...
p0
j
110
E
OF
rltroj
8
°ard
In fact,
this
matter
has a far lengthier
history than
any
of the dates
relating
to the
IPCB
Complaint
indicates.
For almost
a year or more,
before filing the
Complaint, I
made
innumerable attempts
to
resolve
this
matter
privately.
All were
unsuccessful.
My initial
attempts included courteous
and respectful
- informal,
as well
as
more formal -
verbal and written
communication with
the Respondent.
During that
time, and with
increasing agitation,
the Respondent repeatedly
indicated
to me that it
was her
property,
that
she could do
whatever
she wanted
to
do, and that I should
stop bothering
her.
When
I
eventually
became
aware
of
an Illinois law
that I thought
pertained to the
problem,
I called the IPCB
Attorney-of-the-Day
to
make certain
and
was
told that it
did.
At that point,
I provided the Respondent
with
a
printed
copy
of that law,
along
with yet
another respectful
request to remove
the wind
chimes.
They were
not removed.
Instead,
the Respondent
became
even
more
upset.
Her long-term
live-in boyfriend
subsequently
indicated to
me that if a “cop” thought
it
was
OK
to
leave the wind chimes
up on his
property,
then
it was OK for
them to leave
theirs
up, too. The “cop” that
the
boyfriend
was referring
to is the neighbor living
immediately
next to my home
on the
opposite
side, the Respondent
in
concurrent
Complaint
PCB
07-97
who
is himself,
the Respondent
in concurrent
Complaint
PCB 07-
97.
That
man is employed
as a Chicago
Law Enforcement
Officer,
Since
the concurrent
Complaints
were
filed with
the IPCB, this Respondent
and
her
live-
in boyfriend
have
frequently,
publicly, and
sometimes loudly
and profanely,
conferred
with
the other Respondent on
this matter,
frequently in front
of my home where
the
windows are open.
Quite
recently,
they retained
the same attorney,
James
M.
Knox.
Having provided
the
Respondent
with
a written
copy of the
Illinois state law
that
addressed
this problem, yet without
success regarding
the removal of
the wind
chimes,
I
made one
final
attempt to resolve
the matter privately.
I requested that
the
problem
be
mediated
between
us (at no
cost to either
party) through the Center
for
Conflict
Resolution (CCR)
located
in
Chicago’s Loop.
CCR’s policy
is
to
mail
a printed copy
of the initial request
to the Respondent,
followed-
up
by
two
(2) phone calls. Having
received
no
response from the Respondent
after
those
three
contacts,
CCR documented
their unsuccessful
attempts
and sent
me
a copy. (That
document
was filed
as an attachment
to the initial Motion
for Summary
Judgment and
referenced in the Amended
Motion for
Summary
Judgment.)
In summary,
before
filing my
initial Complaint with
the
IPCB, I tried everything
within
my
power to resolve
the matter reasonably,
constructively,
and
privately with
the
Respondent, all
to no avail.
PARAGRAPH
2 of
the Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss, by and through her
attorney,
James
M. Knox, in part, states:
the relief sought by the complainant
is that the Board “order
that the Respondent
stop
polluting.”
The wording for the relief sought is intentional;
it seeks the broadest
possible
remedy. I
do not
feel that the Respondent
has acted appropriately
in this matter or in
good faith. As
a
result, I do not believe the problem will
be decisively resolved without
a judgment in
my favor for the broadest remedy. Based
upon
the Respondent’s actions
at
being served
with the Complaint and afterward (which
are outlined in detail
in this Response),
anything short
of
a
broad
judgment will, instead,
likely result in future noise
being
emitted from her property.
The exact
nature of that future
noise might take different
forms than
wind
chimes — for
example
excessively loud
music, early-morning banging
outside my windows, continued
loud, vulgar
comments,
etc.
Having
learned
a great deal from
this case, I believe the
Respondent
would become more clever,
perhaps hiding the source of the noise
so it
would not be
easily detectable, if
detectable at all. I further believe that without
a broad
Judgment in my favor, the Respondent’s reaction will
further escalate and her retaliation
will continue.
My reasons for making these claims are as follow:
The
Respondent became increasingly
angry and belligerent toward me as I continued
to
attempt to resolve the matter privately. The inappropriateness
of her language became
magnified as
this matter has continued
and
when
served
with
the initial Complaint, the
Respondent’s reaction
was
to shout profanities. Also, second set of wind chimes was
immediately
hung in her back
yard. At that point, there were then two sets of noisy wind
chimes — one
in the front of her
property and one in the back. (Photos of both sets of
wind chimes as they hung on her property were filed as attachments to the initial
Motion
for Summary
Judgment and referenced
in the Amended Motion for Summary Judgment.)
Since that time and for the first time in all the years that we have been neighbors,
dog
feces, cigarette butts, and assorted garbage have been tossed into my fenced in back yard
as
well
as
my front yard. While I have no proof, the
Respondent (and some in her
household) is the
only smoker in
this
entire
section
of our block. She also has three or
four dogs. In
addition, the Respondent, her live-in
boyfriend,
and other members of her
household have frequently directed inappropriate comments and profane and vulgar
language
toward me alone, and in the presence of
my
two sons,
escalating in frequency
and
intensity as the case has moved forward.
PARAGRAPH 3 of the
Respondent’s
Motion
to
Dismiss,
by and through
her attorney,
James
M. Knox, in part,
states:
.the
complainant
refers
to certain
wind
chimes
allegedly
located on the
Respondent’s
residential two-fl
at
property,
adjacent
to
complainant’s
residence
based
upon her
observations and
recording that she
obtained in 2007.
Nothing stated
in Complaint PCB 07-96
or related
to Complaint
PCB
07-96 is
alleged.
Copies of photographs
of
both sets of
wind
chimes
as well
as a recording
of the
actual
noise
from
those
chimes
(as heard from
inside my
home 6 feet away), were
filed as
attachments
to the initial Motion
for Summary
Judgment
and referenced in
the Amended
Motion
for Summary
Judgment.)
PARAGRAPH 4
of the Respondent’s
Motion Dismiss,
by and through
her
attorney,
James
M. Knox, in
part, states that I
Ithe
Complainanti
in my Amended
Motion for
Summary
Judgment
had
acknowledged
that the wind chimes
had
been removed.
In
fact, after
my complaint
was
filed,
but not immediately,
the
wind
chimes from her
front porch
were
eventually
taken down.
However, before
she chose
to remove them,
I
made it
clear
to the
Respondent in one or
more
phone hearings
with
the
Hearing Officer
“present,”
that
the case would
move forward
regardless
of if or when the
chimes might
be
removed. The
reasons
are outlined
in this Response.
In addition,
I told the Respondent
and Hearing
Officer
that I
was
still hearing
chimes
but
could no longer determine
exactly
where they were located.
I suggested
that the original
chimes
had possibly
been intentionally
relocated and/or
other chimes
hung in a position
that I
would
be
unable to determine.
The Respondent’s
back yard, which
is fully
enclosed
by a fence, has
many
objects
in it. I cannot see all
parts of it.
IN
CONCLUSION, seeing this case
through to a positive official
outcome for me from
the IPCB is
crucial. The Respondent
has never taken this
matter seriously
and has
continually felt that it’s been in her
best
interest to disregard every
attempt I made
to
resolve this matter privately, before
filing a formal Complaint
with the IPCB.
No
resolution has
ever been sought,
even privately,
by
the Respondent
during the
innumerable months
this
case has continued
and she has chosen only very
recently to
retain an
attorney.
While
the Respondent and I have never experienced
any trouble
as
neighbors
before this,
clearly she is not amenable to resolving
matters in a reasonable
and non-confrontational
manner.
Instead, she has
demonstrated that when
a concern arises, which
she disagrees
with, she does not respond in kind to courteous
and reasonable requests
made by me. She
is not
open to mediation and
she
has
utter disregard for
the
law
- even when that law
is
presented
to her in print. Instead,
she becomes belligerent,
passive-aggressive, profane,
and retaliatory.
I do not expect the Respondent’s attitude, actions,
or
behaviors
to change. In addition,
I
have
been
told
by
my Chicago Police
District
that my presenting
an official judgment in
my favor from the IPCB is the only document
that Law Enforcement Officers will
honor
if
called to my home in the future for
noise problems.
Therefore, I
respectfully
request that
the Board find in my favor with
the broadest
possible
remedy, thus
decisively
ending this matter. Granting
a judgment in my favor
would
be
the minimal deterrent
to
the
Respondent regarding continued, escalated,
and/or
more “creative”
ways
of emitting noise from her property in
the future, as
well
as
preventing acts of harassment toward
me in the future.
)
/
J
%_____ ——
Compla
mint’s
signatweV
.-.......
.....
(‘ER
tIFitZATION
or
atlirmat ion. stat
that
I
have
read the foregoing and that it is accurate to the best
of
my
knowledge.
(Coinptti*it
‘s
signature)
Suhserihed
to
and
sworn hefore
me
this 2t15
day
Mv commission
expires:
.3 ?
,
P1
I
CERTIFiCATE OF
SERVICE
1,
the
underst
uned.
on
oath
or
atonnation.
state
that
on
(month.
day. year)
October
7,
2008
. I served
the
attached
notice
and
!n
ni” to
the
respondent
by:
X
cord
tied
mad
(attach
cope nt
recetpt
tfavatlahle.
otherwise
you
must
file
receipt
later
witH
Clerk)
regtstcreo
mail
(attach
copy
ot
receipt
if a’
ailable,
otherwise
you must
file
receipt
later v/i fit
Clerk)
messenger
servtce
(attach copy
of
recetpt
it’ avaiLable,
otherwise
von
must
tile receipt
later
with
Clerk)
ersooal
scr
tee
(attach
aftidavit
ti’
available,
otherwise
you
must
ide aftidavir
later
with
Clerk)
tO
the
address
below:
RESPONDENT’S
ADDRESS:
Name
Kat:cn
Sokolowski
.
..
Sittet
io3tW33r4RLacc___
City,
state,
zip
code
c,jJllh,%0202
tst
tvtl
.spondc.
n t tc. arC
ad*(c
t
tplcrxmdtt
—
(. ompia
nant
5 5
turc
Street
1630
W.33rd
Place
City.
state,
zip
code
.Lhicago.
Illinois.6O&0.8ñ2.02_.._
Subscribed
to
and
sworn
hetbre
me
this
DrIi
day
ktt
3
4=Z
)&
‘OFFICIAL
SEAL’
My eomnt:ssion
capres
&.OflL,1t
(‘FRI
I
FICA’rF: OF
SERVICE
I,
tile uriaerstwieo,
Ott
oat
or
at
tirmatior. state that
on
(month,
day,
ear)
0
1
dci
7
2nin<
I tr
<i I nncd ion
d
514
On
o
tru rid
n
the
Respondent’s
attorney
by:
eerniied
wa:t
I
attach
cope
‘it
rreelat
if
a
ailahie,
otherwise
you
muct
he
rt:weipi
later
ith clerkt
ieyisl
ered maui (attaeh
copy
o
t
receipt it’
ace
labte,
otherwise
von
must
tile
receIpt
later
e,
alt
Clerkt
atesset iet seratcet
attaeti eeay oI
receIpt
if
aaiaole, olnerwise
you
ntrwt
tile
receipt
Liter
wi
to C
terk
X
ersonat
sera
Ce tartaeh aftLia
it
tfaiailahle,
otherwise von
mast
tile at’fidat it later
o,ith. Clerk)
to
the add
ess
below:
N
ante:
lames
0
Pta’s,
\thra”
tl<t
thc
Respondent
Street
Chestnut
Tower,
Pt
Vs.
Chestnut,
OttO
(‘up,
state,
ztp code
tJTiica,t;a.Utbncst:a
(itid
itt
list
cacti
resr’oriden.t
s rrame and
addreNs,
i.f
multiple
respsnrleTiis)
(‘em
t;tai’st’e’\
‘streest
lOt)
SV.
33rd Place
‘IP, state, ci code
Chicago, Illinois
6O6O862O2
,.,,.,,,.,
Se,hssrihed to wad
sv’srn
horore
me
this
7cr,)
claN
-
Vie
eon’rt
scum
CsitO5’
5.
I,
2,0
/
I