IN
THE MATTER
BEFORE THE
Complainant.
V.
To:
Clerk
illinois Pollution
Control
Board
100
West
Randolph Street
Suite
11-500
Chicago, illinois 60601
Bradley
P.
Hailoran
Hearing
Officer
James
R.
Thompson
Center,
Suite
11-500
100
West
Randolph
Street
Chicago,
illinois 60601
CLERK’S
OFFICE
DEC
05
2008
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
Attorney
for Respondent
James
M.
Knox
121 W. Chestnut, #3104
Chicago, Illinois
60610
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE
that I
have today
filed with
the Office
of
the
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
a
Reply to Respondents’
Motion to
Consolidate and
Reply to
Respondents’ Reply
to
Complainant’s
Response to
Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss
and
AFFIDAVIT OF
SERVICE,
a
copy
of
which
is herewith
served
ipóñ
the
assigneid
Hearing
Offlcer
the Resnondent, and
the
R
io4tnfr.
‘sA
ttornev.
Dated:
December 5, 2008
1630
W.
33rd
Place
Chicago, Illinois
60608-6202
773.744.1954
Respectfttlly
submitted
by,
Kyl.e N
sh,
Pro
Se
KYLE
NASH,
KAREN SOKOLOWSKI,
Respondent.
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
PCB
07-96
)
(Citizens
Enforcement
— Noise)
)
)
)
)
I
NOTICE
z
Hr
j]ijflL:4ii: (W
SI tCF
.
ilw
d
LifliniaLklr.
%d
th41
Eflfl(1.
4taV
V.Jr}
1ibr, 1t)i
I r%cl
t
ii:iitL
flde,Mti-n
tCz,ttoIidatc
d
fLpIy
Rçrd1
Rir
t
Crnplainants
espise
t
Re3pondtn1s
Mdün
k
r*rnis
to thi
I epnderW
ttorry
by
‘
i1ir
I
F)1 I
(4L(3i1.
UpY
{I
LL1ip4. IU
hL\is.t’
yuu n
tti9
(
fl1t
4t;h:l1
ipy
t
L.ipl
I3N_
yrni
nu4
hk
r
tpL1a1tr iitb
(krk
i ch
I w’iitiI
I U JLkL1
LR.-rk
I 4
yi
11LcI
*I2
L1t
IJWI
4.
krj
Lzwk
Ltaa1I;Lhk
zrwi.r
ttJ
hi
L’ J
LJU.
ti 1 L1k.I
(kii
}
I %
If k x[
k
I
LW
hi
1h’JHUI.
‘I W_L I I
W,
( IW%LIIUI.
.# D4
‘ c
I1L
j)
i11tV.9j1l3[1j.
Nk]O
i’Ii.I
L.II I
f LtIL1t
iid
.ILIr isaIIijLe
idt1It
.
L.Ift?
J
t)VL
Urd
1Jii
(bly. ZIk. r1j tQ1
Cijjp
4
I1ItflL1i
(-f![Li
arki
wni IIInc
liii’.
_1.
(LW
SEAL
I a/J’-
ju
Awuo
)
‘-cz
Y
:>-:z, -
L1k
I III
Iti
4
jtfl
Mfl7fSTfl$
C
ltã
PO$T&
iEfrvVCE
-
1
p
S
t”
fl4r
USPS
PRIORITY
MAIL®
w
Ci
ft
‘.Cu8
2J:
ZIP
-
€
USPS
DEL’VERY
CDNFIRMATION”
BIN
LI
IIITh
HA
Kit
OhI1
HI
$20
€Ct06
9101
0335
5574
9564
5243
72
—“w
‘nrosr4rs
19’
1
RI
01’
W
i’L%Lit
%I
I
¾tilCfl1M”OI
tip
.
-?
USPS
PRIORITY
MAILS
I
JAMf
L
sNi):’:
2i
wo
$jt
ST
AP
34
CHICAGO
IL
60610-3485
ZiP
W
USPS
DELIVERY
CONFIRMATLON
420
80610
9101
03U5
5574
9543
552S
29
CI
ick—N-Ship
p
t—es
Sn.
lat*q
tt%
Øk
sfl€an
USPS
PRIORITY
MAILS
in
a;i
fs!
‘S
P
nhf’.
:awS’
4T4
W’SNIR
CHICAGO
IL
6O60
6202
ZIP
-
&
USPS
DELIVERY
CONF1RMATION
TW
ouinunw
.220
60608
9i01
0365
5574
9564
5244
13
Eksdrcnc
R$t4t
Apptwtd
1038555’49
Elecvcmic
Rate
Appkoved
14X3S555749
Eloctrtmic
Rate
Approved
A038555749
Now comes Complainant, KYLE
NASH, pro
Se, replying
to the Respondents’
Motion
to
Consolidate.
I respectfully request that
the Board
deny this Motion. The
reasons for
my
request
include,
but
are not
limited
to
reasons outlined
below:
1. Each
of the original
and amended
Complaints were
intentionally filed
by
me
as
separate
and
distinct
cases at the initial
date of filing. Each Respondent
has
been served individually for that and
all further matters, even
after jointly
retaining an attorney.
2.
New developments in
each Complaint have arisen even
since
I filed my Reply
to
Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss. These developments
are specific to each
Respondent
and are related
to
each
case, separate and distinct from one
another.
(These developments are fully outlined in
my Reply to the Respondents’
Reply
to
the Complainant’s Reply
to the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, which
is being simultaneously filed with this Reply to the Respondents’ Motion
to
Consolidate.)
3.
Paragraph
2 of
the Respondents’
Motion
to
Consolidate
claims
that
the
Complaints are identical
with
respect
to
the issues
involved.
In
fact,
two (2)
completely
separate
and
distinct
sets
of
details
relating
to
wind
chime
pollution
were
stated
in the
original
and the
amended
Complaints
that were
filed
against
each
Respondent.
4.
Paragraph
1 of
the
Respondent’s
Motion
to Consolidate
claims
that
all
the
homes
and
properties
more
than
similar,
if
not
identical.
. My
house
is
a
single-
family
home,
the
Respondents’
are
two-flats.
There
also
exist
differences
in
the
front
yards,
backyards,
and
gangways
on
the
properties
regarding
access,
enclosures, vegetation,
and
the
existence
or
not of
air-conditioning
units,
garages,
and
assorted
paraphernalia,
both
small and
large,
on
the properties.
5.
Two (2)
separate
and
distinct
time lengths
exist during
which
each
Respondent has
lived
in
this neighborhood. (I have
lived
here
the longest
and
have
a
consistent
history
of
investment
in
this neighborhood, especially
in
keeping
the
neighborhood
as
quiet
and safe
as
possible.
I have
addressed
these
issues
and
more,
both
individually
and in
cooperation
with
the local
CAPS
community
police
program.
6.
Two (2)
separate and
distinct time
lengths exist during
which
each
Respondent
has lived in
their respective
homes next
to
mine.
7. Two (2)
separate
and distinct
personalities
define
each
Respondent.
These
major differences
have come
to
bear on
each
situation in
different ways.
8.
Two (2) separate
and
distinct
relationships
and
interactions
existed
in the
past
between
each Respondent
and
me, prior
to my
filing
an original
Complaint
against
each.
9.
Two
(2) separate and distinct
relationships
and
interactions currently
exist
between
each Respondent
and
me.
10. Two (2) separate
and distinct
relationships
and
interactions
will exist in
the
future between
each Respondent
and me following
an IPCB ruling.
11. Two
(2)
separate and distinct
family constellations
occupy
each
Respondent’s home.
These
have
directly and indirectly
impacted
each situation
before,
during, and
also will following
the Board’s
ruling.
12.
Two
(2) separate
and
distinct
past histories
exist
regarding
the
presence
or
absence
of
noise
pollution
emanating
from
each
Responderts
property
prior
to
my
filing
the
original
Complaint
against
each.
13.
Two (2)
separate
and
distinct
past
histories
exist
regarding
types
and
levels
of noise
pollution
emanating
from
each
Responderts property
prior to
my
filing
the
original
Complaint
against
each.
14. Two
(2) separate
and
distinct
past
histories
exIst
regarding
attempts
to
resolve
the
noise
pollution
emanating
from
each
Respondent’s
property
prior
to
my
filing
the
original
Complaint
against
each.
15.
Paragraph
2 of the
Respondents’
Motion
to
Consolidate
claims
that
the
time
frame
In each
case,
which
necessitated
my
flung
each Complaint
are
Identical.
in
fact
these
two (2)
cases
are
not Identical
with respect
to
time
frame
as
clearly
stated
In the
documents
related
to
each
case.
16.
Two
(2)
separate
and distinct
lengths
of
time existed
following
the
filing
of
each
Complaint
after
which
each
Respondent
finally
removed
her
and his
wind
chimes
from
sight,
not sound.
17. Two
(2)
separate
and distinct
personal
reactions
have
existed
toward
me
by
each
Respondent
since the
initial
Complaint
was filed.
18.
Only one
(1)
Respondent,
JIMENEZ,
has
been
trained in
the
law through
Law
Enforcement.
To
the best
of my knowledge,
SOKOLWSKI
has
not.
19. Only
one
(1)
Respondent,
JIMENEZ,
has been
employed
(for
many years)
by
the City of
Chicago
as a professional
Law
Enforcement
Officer.
To
the
best
of my
knowledge,
SOKOLWSKI
has
not.
20. Only
one
(1) Respondent,
JIMENEZ,
has
engaged
in formally
documented
retaliatory
behavior
toward
me
following
the
initial
filing of the
Complaint
against
him. (See
City
of
Chicago
attachments
to Complainant’s
Reply
to the
Respondents’
Motion
to Dismiss).
SOKOLWSKI
has not.
21.
Paragraph
2
of the
Respondents’
Motion
to
Consolidate
requests
that
“... in
the interest
of
judicial
economy...”
the
two
cases
be consolidated.
As
stated
before
in previous
documents,
I tried
in
every
way
possible over
a
very
extensive
period
of time to
resolve these
separate
matters
with each
Respondent
individually
prior
to
filing
a
Complaint.
If
each Respondent
were
concerned
about judicial economy,
during that
time,
each would
have chosen
to resolve their
matter
individually with me
personally
or
through mediation (each
individually declined
to participate).
Even after
each
Complaint was filed, each Respondent
on their own
could have
chosen to
initiate
attempts
to
resolve the matter with
me privately or
through
mediation. Each
did
not.
Furthermore, if SOKOLOWSKI
was seriously
interested in judicial
economy and
seriously
interested in resolving
the matter
at
all,
she would have
responded in
some manner to my recent letter
of November 12, 2008,
suggesting that
a
meeting take
place
to discuss these matters.
(See Paragraph
3 and Attachment
1 to
Complainant’s Reply
to the Respondents’ Reply
to the Complainant’s Reply
to the
Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss: SOKOLOWSKI.)
Furthermore,
JIMENEZ,
as a
Chicago Law Enforcement officer,
has “... sworn
to
follow and uphold the law and of whom it is expected
that” of whom it is
expected
that his “. . . on and
off-duty
conduct reflects
both the
highest
standards
of police
service and
personal responsibility” (12/5/08 City of Chicago Police website)
If he was seriously interested in judicial economy and seriously interested in
resolving the matter at all, he would not simply offer assurance that he is
a “...
law abiding citizen” who could
be
fully trusted not to pollute any longer, his
actions
would support
that.
In fact,
as
recently as November 14
and 15, 2008, he
again blatantly
disregarded
the law.
(See
Paragraph
6
and
Attachments 1-4
to Complainant’s
Reply to the
Respondents’ Reply to the
Complainant’s Reply to the
Respondent’s
Motion to
Dismiss: JIMENEZ.)
I am the only person in this matter
who has had any
interest in
judicial economy.
I have tried in
every
conceivable way
to resolve each
matter before having
to file
and for the
entire time after
filing. Representing
my
case
pro
Se, I have
nevertheless tried to engage
in these
proceedings correctly and
as best I can.
I
have completed all documents,
submitted evidence verifying
allegations, met
every, participated in all
Status Hearings except one,
and have addressed
every
matter in each Complaint in
a
thorough
and
serious manner.
22. Paragraph 2 of the Respondents’
Motion to Consolidate
states that the
Complaints “... should
be consolidated
to
ensure
fairness to all.” There is
nothing about any thing that
has happened over the
past four (4) years (both
informally and
then
formally after each Complaint
was filed) related
to
this
issue
that
has been fair to me. The
amount of stress, time, energy, effort,
monetary
outlay, and lost wages that I have
had to endure in this matter have
been
extensive and serious.
Throughout almost
all
of the
past
four (4)
years,
each
Respondent individually
has failed to take the matter seriously,
either informally or formally.
Each Respondent,
although
having unlimited
time
and
opportunity
to resolve
their
matter
with
me prior
to the Complaint
being tiled
against
them,
chose not
to.
Each Respondent,
although
having unlimited
time
and
opportunity
to resolve
their matter
with
me since the
Complaint
being
filed
against
them,
chose
not to.
Each
Respondent
individually
chose
not to
submit Responses/Replies
required
of them
by
the
IPCB
nor
followed
all
IPCB
deadlines.
Each Respondent
individually
did
not
participate
in
all
IPCB
phone
hearings.
The
only
choice showing
some
seriousness
was
their
decision
to jointly retain
an
attorney
and was
exercised
only near
the end of
the proceedings.
It was
not an
option either
chose individually
or
together
during the
extensive
period
of time
that
passed
before.
At no
point
during
he extensive
time period
that
has
passed
since
the Complaints
were
filed
did
either
Respondent
file any
Motion
to
Consolidate.
Had
that
actually
been
important
to them
in any
way,
they
would
have
taken it seriously
and
chosen
to do so before
now
Based
upon the
aforementioned,
I request
that the
Board deny
the
Respondents’
Motion to
Consolidate.
Respectfully,
Kyle
Nash
Pro Se
-
\_
(.
L —
ith
i afti mii
n’W
have rccI
thcf-cnii nd disi
i
i
of my
kr*wI.
(Crtij1aiua
iatxi
S
i
w’rn
L”
4•-_:--
rrv
Th! - ——----..
-
Vy
qir
rrzr-,
•
N
L)
Now
comes
Complainant,
KYLE
NASH,
pro
Se,
filing
a
Reply
to
Respondents’
Reply
to
Complainant’s
Response
to
Respondent’s
Motion to
Dismiss.
I respectfully
request
that the
Board
rule
in
my
favor.
Because
I am
engaged
in these
legal proceedings,
pro
se,
I may
be
completely
wrong
about
this, but
I question
the validity
of the
Respondents’
Reply
to
Complainant’s
Response
to Respondent’s
Motion
to Dismiss
because
it was
filed
as
consolidated
reply.
At the
time it was
filed, there
had
not
yet
been
any ruling
by
the Board
on
the
Respondents’
Motion
to Consolidate.
Therefore,
I would
expect
that
until the
Board has
made
a
decision,
that nothing
would
change.
This is
especially
true
given that
my
Reply
to Respondents’
Motion to
Consolidate
requests
that the
Board
deny
the Motion.
As
a
result,
I am
filing
Complainant’s
Reply
to Respondents’
Reply
to
Complainant’s
Response
to Respondent’s Motion
to
Dismiss
in
the previous
way.
Please
note
that
many,
if not most,
of
the points
raised in
the
Respondents’
Reply
to
Complainant’s
Response
to
Respondent’s
Motion to
Dismiss
have
already
been
fully
addressed
in
my Complainant’s
Response
to Respondent’s
Motion to
Dismiss
and other
documents
I have
previously
filed.
Paragraph 1 of the Respondents’
Reply to
Complainant’s
Response to
Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss states:
1.
Both
above captioned proceedings were filed
by
complainant, Kyle
Nash,
seeking
relief
from environmental
noise
pollution
said
to
emanate from adjacent two flat residential
apartment
buildings, or from
the respective yards or porch areas thereto, which are owned
by
the
respective respondents herein,
and are
located
on
either
side of
complainant’s own nearly
identical
two flat
apartment
building, each of the
three
located
mid-block, in a
City
of Chicago near
Southside residential neighborhood; the
three architecturally
nearly identical buildings were
constructed
so
as
to
stand some six feet apart, allowing only
narrow
passageways between
buildings
on
either
side of
complainant’s
own building, with
small open yards
at
the rear of each.
The homes
and properties are
not similar or not identical, relative to the
Complaint. My
house
is
a
single-family home; the Respondent’s is
a
two-flat.
There also
exist differences
in the
front yards, backyards,
and
gangways
on the
properties
regarding
access,
enclosures, vegetation, and the existence or not
of
ac-conditioning
units,
garages, and
assorted paraphernalia, both small and
large,
on the
properties.
These facts are relevant to issues cited in my
response
to
Paragraph
2 below.
1%
Paragraph 2 of the
Respondents’ Reply
to Complainant’s
Response
to
Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss
states:
2.
In response to
complainant’s initial pleadings herein, Respondents filed separate
Motions to Dismiss which were filed
on or about August, 2008, asserting that the noise making
devices
identified
by complainant, viz wind chimes,
have been
removed from
both
of their
respective properties more than
one
year ago,
facts
which are
readily
admitted by complainant;
further, both respondents have advised
their attorney that they do not intend nor will either of
them ever install similar devices on their
respective properties, front or back, in
the
future, and
this
fact has been
made known to the
complainant at Status conferences
held herein by Bradley
P.
Halloran, Hearing Officer,
with an offer
by
respondents
through
their attorney to enter into an
agreed order to memorialize
this agreement to
preserve
the status quo
between the parties hereto
and purchase
peace.
Again,
as
stated
during
several Status hearings and other
documents that have
been filed, the
wind
chimes were removed from sight, however I have
continued
to
hear chimes on and off ever
since. In addition, the Respondent has continued
to
demonstrate the
very
reasons why I have no confidence that any such
agreement
would
be
followed.
(See
response to Paragraph
3
and Attachment 1)
Paragraph 3
of
the Respondents’ Reply
to Complainant’s
Response to
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
states:
3.
in
spite of these voluntary
efforts
on the
part
of
respondents to ameliorate this
situation,
complainant has now filed
a RESPONSE to the Motion to Dismiss, introducing for
the
first time new
extraneous
matters, which are
not
referable
to noise
pollution,
basing
these
matters
on unsubstantiated
hearsay
statements
which
are unsupported,
irrelevant and
immaterial, with still
no mention of noise standards purportedly violated.
The Respondent “voluntarily’ removed
the wind chimes
only after several
years
during which it was fully known that
a problem existed and was
in violation of
Illinois law. The wind chimes were
removed from sight only after
the Respondent
was
served with the Complaint and, even
then, not immediately.
Matters included
in
my Reply to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss were
addressed
in direct response to
the
suggestion that I acquiesce to an “...agreed order to
memorialize this agreement to preserve the status quo between the parties
hereto and
purchase
peace.” My agreeing to
anything like that would
be
solely
founded
upon my confidence in the honestly, character, and integrity of the
Respondent in
following
through. I have not had any
confidence and,
as a result
of recent
further developments related
to
the
case
and cited below, I now have
even
less.
If
the Respondent were
seriously
interested
in
resolving
the
matter
in
any
way
she
would
have
responded
in some
manner
to
my
recent
letter
dated
November
12,
2008
suggesting
that
a
meeting
take
place
to discuss
these
matters.
(See
ATTACHMENT 1) I personally
put
the letter
directly
into
the
Respondent’s
mailbox
at
which
time
the door
opened
and
the
Respondent’s
long-term,
live-in
boyfriend’s (JESSE)
live-in
daughter
(NANCY)
picked
it
up,
told
me
she
had
it,
and
that
she
would
see
that
it was
delivered
inside.
Afraid
that
my
voicemail
may
have
malfunctioned,
additionally,
I left
a
message
the following
day on
the Respondent’s
voicemail
stating
that
there
may
have
been
a
problem
and that
it had
they
had tried
to call
me the
previous
evening,
asking
that
they please
try
again.
There
was
no
communication
whatsoever
regarding
my
letter,
my invitation
to
meet,
or my
voicemail
from
the
Respondent
of
anyone
in
the
household
designated
by
her. At
the
very
least,
I
expected
the
courtesy
of some
response,
at
the very
least
indicating
something
along
the
lines
of:
1.
The
Respondent
would
have
to
contact
her
attorney.
2. That
I should
contact
her attorney.
3.
That
her
lawyer
advised
that the
matter
not
be discussed
with
me.
4.
That
her
attorney
would
be contacting
me about
the
letter
I have
fully met the burden
of
proof required
by
the
applicable law
in this
case.
All
necessary
evidence
was
submitted
in
the Original Motion
for Summary
Judgment
and other documents
I have filed
in this
case.
Paragraph
4 of the
Respondents’
Reply
to Complainant’s
Response
to
Respondent’s
Motion to
Dismiss
states:
4.
Title VI, Noise
415 ILCS Section 24,
provides
that
“...no
person
shall emit noise
that
unreasonably
interferes
so as to violate regulations
or standards
adopted
by
the Board;”
while
Section
24 also provides
that “[T]he
Board may adopt regulations,
limitations,
prescribe
requirements, prescribe
maximum
permissible limits...”
and, Sections
30-31
prescribe
“...detailed explanation
of
violations alleged...” 31(a)(1)B,
and
C
“actions that
may
resolve...;”
and furthermore,
Section 42
provides
mitigation,
duration
and
gravity
considerations
combined
with “due
diligence,”
considerations
in such enforcement
proceedings which
we
submit have
been
met
in
this case
by the
respondents
who have - and
this
is not in
issue,
complainant
freely admits
this
- by
voluntarily
removing
the
noise
making devices,
viz wind chimes,
they have both
mitigated the noise
pollution
by voluntary
removal
of the offending devices,
and have
been
therefore duly
diligent.
See
previous
response
to
Paragraph
2.
Paragraph
5 of the
Respondents’
Reply to Complainant’s
Response
to
Respondent’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
states:
5.
Please
keep in
mind
that
the
subject
neighborhood
in question
where
the three
individual
property
owners
reside,
is
a
reasonably
quiet,
residential
area,
about
a block
from
a
busy thoroughfare, with
Chicago
Fire
Department
nearby
and the
usual
ambulances,
police
and
other
emergency
equipment
moving
up
and down
the
nearby
streets
at
all
hours of
the
day
and
night,
and
with
a
playlot
public
park
directly
across
the narrow
Street
fronting
the
three
properties
where
children
of
different
ages
are in
evidence
a
good
part of
the
day,
with
apartment
buildings
lining
either side
of the
street
on
narrow
lots
with
automobiles
parked
on
either
side,
and with
residents
coming
and going
at
all
hours
of the
day
and
night,
this
is anything
but
a
completely
quiet,
sleepy
area
by
any
stretch of
the imagination.
The
only
noise
that is
relevant
in this
case
is the
Respondent’s
noise
pollution
about
which
the
Complaint
was
filed.
Th1ssueof.-pai44ng4s-re1evant-te-the-tak
avWr4he=blUek’—
Paragraph
6 of the
Respondents’
Reply
to
Complainant’s
Response
to
Respondent’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
states:
6.
Complainant
would
now,
in her
Response
introduce
for
the
first time
extraneous
and
irrelevant
matters,
having
no
connection
with the
respondents,
and is asking
the
Board
to now
consider
“dog feces
and
assorted
garbage”
being
tossed
into
her
yard,
tree
branches
and the
like,
unexpected
telephone
calls
and
graffiti
mysteriously
appearing,
all of which
the
respondents,
and
each of
them, denies
having
any involvement
with, and
categorically
deny that
they
would
ever
institute,
initiate
or
in
anyway
contribute
to such
goings
on or
occurrences
which
they
abhor
personally,
and
which
as law
abiding
citizens
would
never
condone
and
would
jointly
seek
to
prevent
if
it were
within
their
power.
See
previous
response
to
Paragraph
2.
Paragraph
7
of
the
Respondents’
Reply
to
Complainant’s
Response
to
Respondent’s Motion
to
Dismiss
states:
7.
We
rake
notice
of
the
fact that
the
Board
has numerous
meetings
on
momentous
matters
involving
commerce
and
industry
operating
on
a large scale,
and
this
matter
while
minor
in
the
grand
scheme
of things,
is very
important
to
the respondents,
as
well
as
the complainant,
and
should
be resolved
expeditiously
on
the pleadings.
This
paragraph
reads
as deliberate
and not-so-veiled
attempt
to
minimize
the
importance of my
Complaint
relative
to other
matters
before
the
Board.
As a
citizen
and
taxpayer
of
the State
of
Illinois,
of
which
the
IPCB
is part,
my
complaint
is
no more
or
less
important
than
any
other complaint
filed
with
the
Board.
Simply
because
I
have
been
patient
in this
matter
and
understanding
of
the
numerous
pressures
faced
by
the
Board
in general,
neither
is indication
by
me or
by
the
Board
that
my
Complaint
lacks
importance.
Paragraph
8
of the
Respondents’
Reply
to Complainant’s
Response
to
Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss
states:
8.
Frankly,
neither
respondent
can
afford
to conduct
this
new
“fishing
expedition”
proffered
by the
complainant,
although
as
neighbors,
they
too are
concerned
about
the conduct
of the neighborhood,
do not
wish
to have
refuse
deposited
in their
own
yards,
excessive
noise or
the like
interfering
with
neighborhood
peace
and
quiet,
and
both
would simply
like
to
go
on
existing
as
law
abiding
members
of
the community,
without
undue
interference
from
neighboring
properties
or their
immediate
neighbors,
including
the
complainant,
or
anybody
else.
I consider the statement
“fishing
expedition”
a
far too
casual
phrase
given
the
seriousness of this
Complaint.
All of
the
choices
the
Respondent
has
freely
made
to-date,
have
brought
things
to this
point.
Whatever
choices
are
made
by
the
Respondent
prior
to
the
Board’s
final
ruling
will
decide
next
steps
and
whether discovery
will
be
necessary.
That
the
Respondent
cannot
“afford”
this,
has
been
the
result
of the
Respondent’s
choice
not
to
resolve
this
matter
privately
or
through
medication
before
the
Complaint
was
filed
or since.
Only
very
recently
has the
Respondent
decided
to
hire
an
attorney,
which
charge
for
their
services. This
is
a
choice,
not
a
requirement.
There
has
never
been
anything
stopping
the
Respondent
from
engaging in this
process
pro
Se,
as
I have
had
to
do
all
along
because
I cannot
“afford”
the
extensive
stress,
time,
energy,
effort,
monetary
outlay,
and
lost
wages
that
I have
had
to
face
in
this
matter,
let
alone
hiring
an
attorney.
The
suggestion
that
the
Respondent is
concerned
about
“. . . excessive
noise
and
the
like interfering
with
neighborhood
peace
and
quiet”
is
not
correct. Within
even
the
past
month
and
a
half,
the
live-in
daughter
(NANCY)
of
the
Respondent’s
long-term live-in
boyfriend
(JESSE)
has
engaged
in
5
to
6
unbelievable
screaming
matches
with
her
boyfriend,
each
lasting
30
to
45
minutes. These
fights
could
be
heard
taking
place
inside
the
Respondent’s
home
with
all of
her
(and
our)
doors
and
windows
shut.
The noise was even louder
as
the fight moved
outside in front of the
Respondent’s house, my house, and other houses
up
and down the
block
as
those
involved moved
up
and down
the block
as
the fight
continued. Each
occurrence was incredibly loud and included
more profanity and
vulgarity than
any
other
words
used.
The
Respondent did nothing
to stop these events.
Again, the suggestion that the Respondent
is law abiding is false,
If that were
true, no
complaint
would ever have had
to be filed, especially after
I provided
the
Respondent
with
a written
copy
of the relevant
Illinois Law
Paragraph
9
of the Respondents’
Reply to Complainant’s Response
to
Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss states:
9.
The chimes are
down now and will
stay down; both homeowner respondents
go to
work each
day,
Karen
Sokolowski
leaves between
6:30 and 6:45 a.m. each day and returns at 7:30
8:00
p.m., seven days
a
week,
Mr. Jimenez similarly
works long hours, and everyone wants this
matter
over with,
concluded
and resolved,
so that they can go on with their lives.
In fact,
I have previously cited this very information in support of my Complaint.
The
Respondent
does
work outside
the
home, while I work from inside my
home
and am
therefore
subjected
both
personally and
in terms of my livelihood 2417
to
unwanted
noise pollution emanating
from the
Respondent’s property.
I completely agree that this matter
should
be “. .
. over with,
concluded,
and
resolved,
so
that [all parties} can
go
on with their lives.”
However,
I feel that it
actually should have been “. .
over with,
concluded, and
resolved,
so
that [all
parties could]
go
on with their
lives...” long
before my filing
a Complaint was
necessitated and resulted in
my having to engage in
such
a
generally
“costly”
and
protracted process
that it has
been for me. Only the
Respondents choices
have
brought
things
to this point.
In support
of my agreement
that this matter
be “. . .over with, concluded, and
resolved,
so
that [all parties}
can
go
on with their lives,” I request
again that the
Board rule
in
my
favor.
That’s the only way to
best
assure
an end to the noise
pollution and
will
act as proof required
by
the police
so
that
they
can and will
act
upon the problem
in
the future.
Respectfully,
Kyle Nash
Pro Se
b1Iri1nt (.
—
—
ci at mk
k1n
tc
iav r4
tbcf cjiw. md dsi
t
i
thbest *ifiny
3;
arw wrn
F,
F’{Ty
idflrç
-
--
y
L(
9
ATTACHMENT 1
11/12/2008
Jesse,
This is Kyle.
I’ve tried
to
call
you
several
times this week
but I never
got an
answering machine
so
I’m
writing instead.
I have
a
couple
things
I’d like
say
about windchime
thing
since
a
lawyer
came into this.
I
think
it’s
better
to
talk with
you
and then
you can talk with
Karen,
as
she
and I are
named
in the
paperwork.
If you’re
open to talking
with me, please
call me
and leave
a message or
email
me
so
we can
set something
up. Sometime
mid-day this
weekend
at
my house
would
be best, if that would
work
for
you
— just name
Sat or
Sunday
anytime 10:30
and 2:30 (I’ll
comfirm).
Jamie will
be
in
the
house
but he
won’t
be
there
talking with
us.
Kyle
773744.1954
kneweb@esitegroup.com
