KYLE
NASH,
Complainant.
V.
LOTIES
JJMENEZ,
Respondent.
TN
THE
MAFTER
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
PCB
0797
)
(Citizens
Enforcement
— Noise)
)
>
>
)
)
NOTICE
CLERK’S
OFFICE
OCT
o
72OO8
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
POIIjjOn
Control
Board
To:
Clerk
illinois
Pollution
Control Board
100
West
Randolph
Street
Suite
1-500
Chicago, illinois
60601
Attorney for
Respondent
James
M. Knox
121 W.
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
TAKB
NOTICE
that
I have today
filed
with
the
Office
of
the
Clerk
of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
a
RESPONSE
to
Motiou
to
Dismiss
and AFFIDAVIT
OF
SERVICE,
a
copy
of
which is
herewith
served
óñ
the asign4
Heaiing Officer,
the
Resnondent,
and
the
Respondent ‘s
Attorney.
Dated:
October
7.
2008
1630 W 33rd
Place
Chicago,
Illinois
606084202
773,744.1954
SeeLfullYsubrnY.
Kyl,e ash.
Pro
Sc
CLERK’S
OFFICE
OCT
072008
STATE
OF
ILUNOIS
PARAGRAPH 1 of the
Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss,
by
and
through
2t!f?1?e9,0fltroI
Board
James M.
Knox, in part,
states: ... this
matter has a long
history...
In fact, this matter has a far lengthier
history
than any of the
dates relating to
the IPCB
Complaint itself indicate. 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. 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
aprinted copy of
that
law,
along with
yet another respectful
request to
remove the wind chimes. They were
not
removed.
At
that time,
the Respondent
was (and
to the best of knowledge
still is) employed
by the
City of Chicago as a Law Enforcement
Officer. Having
been presented with
a printed
copy
of that
law,
I assumed that he would
immediately
comply
with
it. He did not.
Furthermore, at that time, I overhead
the Respondent
outside, telling
the long-term
live-in
boyfriend
of the Respondent in
concurrent Complaint
PCB 07-96, that no
one had to do
anything about their
wind
chimes; everyone
could leave them
up. This subsequently
prompted the
boyfriend
to tell me that if a “cop”
thought it was OK to leave
the
wind
chimes up on
hi
property,
then it was OK for
them to leave theirs up,
too.
Since concurrent Complaints were filed with
the IPCB, the Respondents
in both of them
and
the
live-in boyfriend of 07-96
have even more frequently,
publicly, and sometimes
loudly and profanely conferred
with
one another
on this matter, frequently in front
of my
home where the windows are open. Further
indication
of just how closely
these
neighbors/Respondents have been involved together
on these matters is their recently
retaining 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
his
attorney,
James M. Knox, in part,
states:
the relief sought
by
the complainant
is
that the Board “order
that the
Respondent
stop polluting.
This 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.
Respondent replaced the huge wind
chimes on his
front porch with smaller
ones.
The
huge wind chimes were then relocated
to
the Respondent’s
back yard. (Photographs
of
those wind chimes
were
filed as an
attachment
to the initial Motion for
Summary
Judgment
and referenced in the Amended
Motion
for Summary
Judgment.) At
some
point
after
the second,
third,
or maybe even
fourth Phone
Hearing, I saw that
the
Respondent had finally removed the
smaller wind
chimes from the front.
Because of his actions and his earlier
advice
to
the Respondent in Complaint
PCB 07-96
and
her live-in boyfriend,
I do not believe
the problem will
be
decisively resolved
without
a judgment in my favor
for the broadest
remedy. Anything
short
of a broad
judgment will, instead, very likely
result in future
noise being emitted
from his property.
The exact nature
of
that future noise might
take different forms
than
wind
chimes — for
example
excessively loud
music and/or noise
from
outdoor parties, early-morning
banging, resumption of
allowing
their
dog to bark non-stop,
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 his retaliation and harassment
of
me will
continue.
My
reasons for making
these claims are
as
follow:
There
have been noise
issues involving the Respondent
since he first moved into our
previously quiet neighborhood
any number of
years ago. I
have
personally and directly
addressed each issue
with
the Respondent
as
it
has arisen in a courteous and respectful
manner. While these previous issues
have
eventually been resolved, the interactions
on
the Respondent’s end have been neither courteous
nor respectful. I have been treated
with ever-increasing disdain, by the Respondent
and other members of his household,
and
the resolution of one noise problem is followed,
at some point, by yet another noise
problem.
Further,
regarding this
Complaint, which involves wind chimes,
a
direct, retaliatory
connection is clear to me.
Wind
chimes first became an issue immediately following
a
protracted interaction over non-stop noise from their
barking dog,
which would
continue
literally unabated
day-after-day
for
hours on end.
Within
several
days
following the resolution
of the barking
was
resolved, the Respondent
purchased
wind
chimes that
were
approximately 2 1/2 feet in length and carried them
from
his
car
up
his
front steps. Unaware
that
such large
wind
chimes
even
existed, I
curiously watched
while
they
were
immediately hung on his front porch. Our two houses
are located only 6 feet apart and the Respondent has a very loud, resonant, and distinctive
voice.
I clearly overheard from my open window a discussion directed toward my home
punctuated by s
laughter, which included
statements
such as,
“This will really
get
her
now!”
Upon
being
served
with
her
initial
Complaint,
the Respondent
in
concurrent
case
IPCB
07-96
(neighbors
directly
on the
other
side of
my
house)
handed
the
Respondent
in
this
case
(as
he sat
outside
on
his
front
steps),
a copy
of her
Complaint.
As
he looked
over
the
document,
I clearly
heard
through
open
windows
the Respondent
in
this case,
state
loudly,
emphatically,
and repeatedly
that it
was “bulishit.”
Furthermore,
for the
first
time in
the 20
years
that
I’ve
lived in
my home,
after
the initial
Complaint
(IPCB
07-97)
was
filed with
the
IPCB,
dog feces
and
assorted
garbage
have
been
tossed
into my
fenced
back
yard as
well
as
in my front
yard.
In addition,
I
personally
witnessed
a
large
tree branch
being
intentionally
thrown
from
the
Respondent’s
section
of
the
parkway
onto
my
own.
More
seriously,
for
the first
time in
the
35
years I
have lived
in
Chicago,
20
years
of that
time
in my
current
home,
I
began
receiving
unexpected
calls,
visits,
and inspections from
various
Chicago
City
Departments
and
the
Chicago
Police,
along
with
increased
frequency
of
graffiti
on my
garage.
Suspecting
these
occurrences
may be
directly
related
to
my
IPCB filing,
I was
able
to determine
from
official
3 11/911
records
that the
Respondent,
in
fact,
initiated
some, if
not all,
of these
actions.
(See
examples:
Attachments
1 and
2)
PARAGRAPH 3 of the
Respondent’s
Motion
to Dismiss,
by
and through
his
attorney,
James
M.
Knox,
in part,
states:
.the
complainant
refers
to
certain
wind chimes
allegedly
located
on the
Respondent’s
residential
two-flat
property,
adjacent
to complainant’s
residence
based
upon
her
observations
and
recording
that
she
obtained
in 2007.
Nothing
stated
in Complaint
PCB
07-97
or related
to
Complaint
PCB
07-97
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
to Dismiss,
by
and
through his attorney,
James M. Knox, in part, states that I
Ithe
Complainant] in
my Amended
Motion for
Summary
Judgment had acknowledged
that the wind
chimes had been removed.
In fact, after my complaint
was
filed the wind
chimes from
the front porch were
taken
down.
However,
before they were removed
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
is covered
by
large
vegetation, large patio umbrellas,
and many
other objects, and is fully
enclosed
by
a
high
board fence. I can see
almost
none of the
backyard.
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 his 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 he has chosen only very recently
to
retain an attorney.
There is a
long prior history with
the Respondent of problems related
to unrelenting
noise. The
Respondent
has demonstrated that he is not
open
to mediation and, even as
a
Chicago Law Enforcement Officer,
has utter disregard for the law (even when
that
law
is
presented to him in print). In addition, he advised
my neighbors (in Concurrent
Complaint
IPCB 07-96) that the entire matter was
“bullshit.” Furthermore, documented
evidence
has been provided
as
Attachments,
of the Respondent’s retaliation
and
harassment toward me.
I do not expect the Respondent’s attitude, actions, or behaviors
to
change.
In addition,
without
knowing this neighbor was himself a Chicago Law Enforcement
officer, I have
been told at my Chicago Police District that my presenting an official
judgment from the
IPCB
is the only document that Law Enforcement
Officers
would
honor if called to my
home in the
future for noise problems with
the Respondent.
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 his property in the future, as well as
preventing acts of
retaliation and harassment toward me in the future.
Service
Request
Summary
Report
Printed
Date:
Oct
06,
2007
09:31
AM
ype:
Sanitation
Code
Area:
Ward
1
1
Group:
Bureau
olSanitation
- S/S
Jurisdiction:
City of
Chicago
Input
By:
CC
Groups:
Location:
1630
W 33rd
P1, Chicago,
11,
60608, Cook
Location
DetaIs:
ATTACH.ENT
1
Priority:
Standard
Status:
Comp!eteci
Method
Received:
Phone
call
L
.—
•••——K.
j
Partkipants
J’
BUILDING
OWNER
j
BUILDING
CONTACT
I
CALLER
I
CONTACT
RESPONDENT
Personal
Notes
To Self:
Streets
and
Sanitation
Superintendent
Joe
McMuIIin
(11th
Ward)
came
out
and spoke
with
us
He
said neighbors
frequently
call
in
retaliatory
complaints.
If
the
complaints
are
unfounded,
they’re
unfounded.
Nothing
happens.
(Nothing
did
happen.
He
left;
I
never
heard
from
him
again.)
JIMENEZ,
LEWIS
Name
Mdrss
Phone
NASH,
KYLE
‘1030W
33RD
PL CHICAGO,
IL,
60608
June,
2007
773-847-3766
2007-Sep-28
09:21
AM
Chicago
Dept
of
Transportation
Service
Request
Summary Report
Prjnte
Date:
Se
2B, 2007
1O:7
AM
3/9
ATTACHMENT
2
Area:
Ward
11
Jurisdiction:
City
Location:
1630
W
33rd
P1, ChicagO,
Ii,
60608
Cook,
Kyle
Nash
Piioriy:
Standard
tatu:
C6rñpIetd
Status
Dat:
Sap
05,
2007
04:25
PM
Created
Dati6
1
2007
11:27AM
Created
As:
OihaI
Method
Received:
Internet
AL!RMAN
CA
LER/CONTACT
BALCR,
JAMES
11TH
WARD
ehezIañdmt.ne.
SEAL
Cristina
Battafl
Notary
PuNk.
State
ot
011n045
Mv
n.sson
ExpkesJaWJalY
312011
CEJC[FiC
T!O\
C.i4iA._.onoh
or
affirmation,
stat4
that I have read
the
forevoing
and that it
is
accurate to
the
best of mu
((ornniainan
Sub:cribed
to and
sworn
hefhne
me
this
day
otr
—
Notary
Pnhlic
Mv commission
cxpircs:
4.a5.
j
(
(;ERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
I. the
andersinned.
on
oath or affinnation, state
that on (month,
day.
year)
October 7, (
g
tS
, I
served
the attached
notice and
cc
a
a
0 ‘cc
to
the respondent
by:
rnlad nail
(itt
ich tops oh Cuupt
it d\ a] ink
othern
ne son
must
tild eeeipt later
with
Clerk)
registered mail (attach
copy oF receipt
it a ailable, otherwise
You tnitst tile receipt ater with Clerk)
messenger
sen ice
(attach copy
of receipt it’availahle,
otherwise
you
mus.t
tile receipt later with
Clerk)
ptr’ad it sc
c
(a’
aca it
tida
it
it n ulahle
otot,
w NC son
must tile affidavit
later with
Clerk)
to
the
address below:
RESPONDENT’S ADDRESS:
Ii
J imeiie/
name
Street
.JOZLW,_3JrcLPia,cc
City,
state,
zip
code
Thieagojlhnoisd
(LQ86ZO,2
,, —
(list each
respondent’s
name and address it’
multiple
respondents)
-—
Street
1630 W. 33rd Place
City, state.
zip
code
Cbic.ago,UIinoi.s
,6fl&0.8&2fl2
,,,.
Sahscjihed
to and
sworn hettire inc
thi
jth
—
dan
tFECIALSEW
QisUna
Barcaza
c
LrSresJanury312O1
1
Notary
Public
C,,,,
My
eotnnission
expires:
3.L
1
1
LEJIEIHcATE
OF
SERVICE
I,
the ormernifled.
on
call:
ci
etlirmanorn stale that
ott
(month, cay,
sear)
(;
ml
I
ci n
a
1citcct
note
nd
Response to
islet
mu to Dismiss: to
Respondents attorney by:
ccii.
:ied mcI
tattech
copy ot
receipt tf :is.ailuhle, otherwme
you must
tnc’ receipt
3tei e,tth
(.‘lerk
I
tee:steied
tie:
1 tattoO
copS
cit
receipt U
ac a:latitc,
othet’w:se
S-oil
meat tile iceciot later th clerk
ntesse:i>.er
seritee (attach
curt) of
receipt ifas
adah!e,
orhenisise
you
must tIe
reeetpt later
wtth
( lerkt
/<
personat
seri
tee (attoelt
atlirtavit it
avatlat)Ie, or’ cruise
you
muct
rile atthtac::
Leer
a
nh
CierIt
totiie
,idcltess
tieluss.,
Name
.t tunes
M lInes. \ t
noes
I
si
the
Rests
mdent
Street
(.testrmt Liwet.
21
W.
Chesmut.,
$3
101
1
tao
/1 0 (
I’
0 2
Jb
I
list cactI
respondent a name and address if multisde
resPole<tst
S’teet
1650
Ys’,
33rd Place
(ItS. state,
zip code
Chicago, lttmojs
S
ubsent
led to
a:
a)
ccc
is: he tore
me
noç?’t4i
day
0
j,
j.,.JZ,
.,.
2U&
f”
trnciAt
SEW
liii
\ly
eotrn:nscnIo
expires
3),
1..j