BELOW MY LETTER TO THE EDITOR IS A COPY OF MY AMENDED REPLY BRIEF. IN THIS BRIEF I POINT OUT THE FACT THAT THE ANNEXATION OF OUR ROLLINS ROAD PROPERTY INTO THE VILLAGE OF GRAYSLAKE WAS NEVER LEGAL DUE TO THE SLIPSHOD WORK OF BOTH OURS AND THE VILLAGE'S ATTORNEYS. WE WERE NEVER IN THE VILLAGE. THIS IS A FACT THAT THESE LAWYERS ARE FULLY AWARE OF, BUT THEY CONTINUE TO BRING LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST US. WE ARE LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO FILE ADDITIONAL HARASSMENT SUITS TO PROTECT OUR INTEREST WHICH WILL ESTABLISH ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT THE VILLAGE CAN NEVER CREATE A COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX ALONG ROLLINS ROAD TO ALLEVIATE THE OPPRESSIVE TAXES THE CITIZENS OF GRAYSLAKE ARE EXPERIENCING THROUGH THE MISMANAGEMENT THAT HAS BEEN PREVALENT FOR THE LAST TWELVE (12) YEARS.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

CONTRARY TO ONE OF A PERRY SUPPORTER’S CONTENTIONS, “RESIDENTIAL GROWTH IS NOT THE KEY ISSUE OF CONCERN IN GRAYSLAKE”, ONLY 9% OF THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT’S REVENUES ARE PROVIDED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX BASE ACCORDING TO THE (YES FOR OUR KIDS) LOBBYISTS.

PERRY HAS HAD TEN (10) YEARS ON THE VILLAGE BOARD, THE LAST FOUR (4) AS MAYOR, TO EFFECT A CHANGE IN THE REAL ESTATE TAX BASE. HIS CONSTANT HARPING THAT THE CENTRAL RANGE IS AN IMMEDIATE SOLUTION TO THE OUTRAGEOUS TAX BURDEN ON GRAYSLAKE RESIDENTS IS A DIVERSION TO THE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH OF RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOPS THAT HE HAS PRESIDED OVER. HIS HENCHMEN; BASSETT, TAYLOR, AND PRUITT; WHO HAVE HAD FOUR (4) YEARS TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION AND WHO RUBBERSTAMP EVERY POOR DECISION INITIATED ARE NO LESS TO BLAME.

ACCORDING TO THE (YES FOR OUR KIDS) LOBBYISTS THE CENTRAL RANGE PLAN WILL NOT BEGIN TO APPROACH FRUITION BEFORE THE YEAR 2012. JUST RECENTLY THE VILLAGE BOARD HAS IMPLEMENTED NEW RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOPS AT THE VILLAGE STATION, THE OLD PARKWAY GROCERY, AND THE GAGES LAKE PICNIC GROUND. ONE HAS TO WONDER HOW MANY MORE RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOPS WILL BE AUTHORIZED AT THE FAIRGROUNDS WHEN THEY ARE SOLD AND THE CENTRAL RANGE. COULD IT BE THAT PERRY IS PUSHING THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOPS TO INCREASE THE VILLAGE’S POPULATION TO MEET THE STATE’S REQUIREMENT FOR POPULATION TO ATTAIN HOME RULE STATUS FOR THE VILLAGE AND PUMP UP THE SALES TAX BY ONE-HALF, ½%, PERCENT.

PLAT BOOKS SHOW THAT A GOOD CHUNK OF THE SO CALLED CENTRAL RANGE IS OWNED BY THE GARBAGE DUMP. ISN’T THIS LIKELY TO LEAD TO ANOTHER EXPANSION OF THIS LANDFILL TO THE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 83 RATHER THAN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT? ANOTHER BIG CHUNK IS OWNED BY THE CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO. WHAT KIND OF COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DO YOU SUPPOSE THEY WOULD ALLOW?

PERRY’S PIPE DREAM OF A RAILROAD STATION IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE INSTEAD OF USING IT AS A HUB FOR THE REVITALIZATION OF DOWNTOWN GRAYSLAKE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF LIMITED VISION.

PERRY’S SIGNS BRAG “EXPERIENCE + LEADERSHIP = RESULTS.” THE ONLY RESULT VISIBLE IS MORE AND MORE TRAFFIC CAUSING MAJOR GRIDLOCK ON ALL OUR ROADS.

ONE ALSO HAS TO QUESTION THE PROPRIETY OF THE VILLAGE FUNDS BEING DEPOSITED IN PERRY’S STATE BANK OF THE LAKES WHERE HE IS A VICE-PRESIDENT AND MANAGER OF THE GRAYSLAKE FACILITY AND NOT BEING SPREAD AROUND EQUALLY WITH THE OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LOCATED IN THE VILLAGE. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF PERRY’S BRANCH OF THE STATE BANK OF THE LAKES WAS SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED RECENTLY BY THE AVON TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR, RICK DISHMAN, WHO UNREASONABLY RAISED THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS THROUGHOUT AVON TOWNSHIP LAST YEAR.

FINALLY OVER 100,000 REASONS, THAT’S DOLLARS ($100,000.00), ALREADY WASTED IN ATTORNEY’S FEES ON A FRIVOLOUS HARASSMENT LAWSUIT AGAINST A LOCAL FARMER SHOULD BE REASON ENOUGH TO RID THE VILLAGE OF PERRY, BASSETT, TAYLOR, AND PRUITT. THERE IS NO END IN SIGHT IN ADDITIONAL LEGAL COSTS. THE LOSS TO THE VILLAGE OF THE FARMER’S ROLLINS ROAD PROPERTY AND THE ENSUING LAWSUITS AGAINST THE VILLAGE FOR HARASSMENT, BREACH OF CONTRACT, AND POLICE BRUTALITY (CASE NO. 04 C 2888 AGAINST GRAYSLAKE POLICE OFFICER GUY FIASCHE WHICH IS PRESENTLY BEING ADJUDICATED AS A CIVIL RIGHTS CASE IN FEDERAL COURT IN CHICAGO) WILL ADD ADDITIONAL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN LEGAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE VILLAGE.

ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE FARM OWNERS AND THEIR ATTORNEY HAVE APPROACHED THE VILLAGE CONCERNING A MEETING WITH PERRY AND THE BOARD TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER ALL TO NO AVAIL. IT SEEMS PERRY AND HIS CRONIES WOULD PREFER TO SPEND THE TAXPAYERS HARD EARNED MONEYS RATHER THAN LEAVE THE FARM OWNERS ALONE.

A CURSORY GLANCE AT THE VILLAGE’S FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BEING PAID TO AN INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM BASED IN CHICAGO FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 AND ADDITIONAL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO A LIBERTYVILLE LAW FIRM OVER THE SAME PERIOD. IT SEEMS THAT THIS CREW LOVES TO SEND MONEY TO OUT OF TOWN FIRMS RATHER THAN KEEPING IT IN OUR VILLAGE.

THIS EVIL CABAL HAS EVEN FORCED AN ELDERLY MERCHANT TO RELINQUISH HIS LIVELIHOOD AND SELL HIS PROPERTY AT A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS.

BASSETT, PRUITT, AND TAYLOR RECENTLY STATED AT A PUBLIC FORUM THAT THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF UPSCALE HOMES COSTING IN EXCESS OF $700,000.00. IF THIS SO THEN WHY HAS THIS VILLAGE BOARD HELD UP A PROJECT FOR OVER TWELVE (12) YEARS AT HIGHLAND LAKE WHICH WOULD RESULT IN $750,000.00 MINIMUM COST HOMES ON LOTS GREATER THAN ½ ACRE.

IS THIS WHAT OUR COMMUNITY WANTS FOUR (4) MORE YEARS OF? ON APRIL 5^TH VOTE THE RASCALS; PERRY, BASSETT, TAYLOR, AND PRUITT; OUT OF OFFICE!!!

FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT OUR WEBSITE: www.arbor-inc.biz

JOSEPH W. SBARBORO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS

AMENDED REPLY BRIEF TO THE VILLAGE OF GRAYSLAKE'S COMBINED RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION TO MR. SBARBORO'S THREE (3) MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER AND TO VACATE THE COURT’S ORDERS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION BY THE VILLAGE AND THE COURT

Defendant, Joseph W. Sbarboro, in his response to the Village of Grayslake’s combined responses in opposition to Mr. Sbarboro’s three (3) Motions to Reconsider states as follows:

1.       That in Paragraph I, the Village’s contention that “SBARBORO’S MOTIONS ARE NOT PROPER MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER.” because the Motions to Reconsider attempt to collaterally attack the Judgment Order is contrary to established statute and case law.

2.       IN RESPONSE: Case law establishes that an annexation agreement is “void ab initio” if all the owners of record are not included on the annexation agreement. See the People ex rel. May E. Hart, Appellant, vs. The Village of Lombard, Appellee. No. 16840. Supreme Court of Illinois 319 Ill. 56; 149 N.E. 504; 1925 Ill. Lexis 772 October 20, 1925. That “The general rule that the validity of a municipal annexation can only be attacked by a quo warranto action does not apply where an annexation is void from its inception. Under such circumstances an ordinance is subject to direct or collateral attack whenever its authority is invoked in a judicial proceeding. Holtz v. Village of Wheeling, 111 Ill. App. 3d 541, 67 Ill. Dec. 522, 444 N.E. 2d 758 (1 Dist. 1982)”. That the three (3) Motions to Reconsider do assert newly discovered evidence, namely that the Petition to annex, the Amended Petition to Annex, and the Annexation agreement were never submitted or signed by the owner of record of the subject properties and that there is a gap in the Lake County Forest Preserve District’s Rollins Road Savannah. Accordingly these motions to reconsider are well founded in statute and case law and should be upheld. See Exhibits.

3.     That in Paragraph II, the village’s “GENERAL LAW ON SECTION 2-1401 PETITIONS.” attempts to circumvent the above stated statute and case law by claiming that the Defendant is attempting to obtain relief under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 to which the Defendant is not entitled.

4.     IN RESPONSE: Nothing could be further from the truth. The above facts clearly establish newly discovered evidence, which if it had been known at the time of judgment and if it had been brought to the trial court’s attention, would have precluded its entry of the judgment order. See Exhibits.

5.       That in Paragraph III, the village’s “SBARBORO’S MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER WERE NOT TIMELY FILED.” attempts to tout that the Defendant although legally blind was not “legally disabled”.

6.       IN RESPONSE: In a personal injury case, a person is not legally disabled if he or she can comprehend the nature of the injury and its implications. This ruling applies to personal injury cases, which this is not. However 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 provides that “Time during which the person seeking relief is under legal disability or duress or the ground for relief is fraudulently concealed shall be excluded in computing the period of 2 years.” There can be no question that the Defendant being legally blind was under severe duress and handicap at that time and that the village through its present law firm in collusion with the Defendants law firm fraudulently concealed the illegality of the entire annexation procedure. In addition the actions of Judge Margaret J. Mullins in concert with the Village of Grayslake’s attorney, Mr. James T. Mueller, defied Supreme Court Rules, Black’s Law Dictionary, and well-established case law that only persons duly admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois may appear on behalf of other persons by allowing the Defendant, Joseph W. Sbarboro, to represent the land trust and Maria C. Sbarboro. Mr. James T. Mueller brought this to her attention and although fully aware that this was illegal Judge Mullins did not hesitate to circumvent the law. Judge Mullins even went so far as to rule that Mrs. Sbarboro’s presence was not required at the trial thus depriving her of her right to due process. See LEONARD V. WALSH, 73 Ill. App. 2d 45 (4^th Dist. 1066) and NATIONAL BANK OF AUSTIN V. FIRST WISCONSIN NATIONAL BANK OF MILWAUKEE, 53 Ill. App. 3d 482 (2^nd Dist. 1977). Instead, non-attorneys may appear only on their own behalf. See BLUE V. PEOPLE, 223 Ill. App. 3d 594, 596 (2^nd Dist. 1992). In the REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS dated September 5, 2001, by Vernita Allen-Williams, CSR, RPR, Page 17, Lines 14 thru 24, Page 18, Lines 1 thru 24, Page 19, Lines 1 thru 21, Page 96, Line 24, and Page 97, Lines 1 thru 15, the presiding judge, Margaret J. Mullins, stated: “We’ll do a court order. We’ll doctor up a court order; make it say it’s something else…” which with the concurrence of Mr. James T. Mueller they proceeded to do. Due to the fraudulent actions of the court and the attorneys involved the grounds for relief were fraudulently concealed. In addition in THE VILLAGE’S FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM filed in Case No. 02 MR 1400 in this circuit court under Count III (Common Law Fraud) Paragraphs 16 thru 24 Mr. James T. Mueller brought the charge of fraud against the Sbarboros when in reality the village had full and indisputable documentation by a cursory examination of the AMENDED PETITION FOR ANNEXATION that it was the Village of Grayslake through the actions of it’s attorney, Mr. James T. Mueller, that fraud was perpetrated upon the Sbarboros. For these reasons alone all intervening time that has passed should be discounted in computing the period of 2 years. Therefore the current action by the Defendant is indisputably within the two (2) year period specified in 735 ILCS 5/2-1401. See Exhibits.

7.       That in Paragraph IV, the village’s “THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER FAIL TO SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE.” contends that there is a one (1) year time period from the time of the annexation to challenge it.

8.       IN RESPONSE: If the properties in question as shown on the Village of Grayslake’s Zoning Map and the Lake County tax parcel maps were not contiguous at the time of the illegal annexation and are not contiguous as of this date. The one (1) year time limitation of 65 ILCS 5/7-1-46 does not apply. See People ex rel. Village of Forest View v. Village of Lyons, 218 Ill. App. 3d 159, 161 Ill. Dec. 50, 578 N.E.2d 177 (1 Dist.), cert. Denied, 142 Ill 2d 664, 164 Ill. Dec. 927, 584 N.E.2d 139 (1991). The village’s contention that “where a municipality ‘jumped’ forest preserve property—the land is considered to be contiguous” is contrary to 65 ILCS, 5/7-1-7 & 8 which states, “The territory included within such forest preserve district shall not be annexed to the municipality…” Also, as shown on the Lake County Tax Parcel Maps, a one hundred-fifty (150) foot wide parcel running from east of Route 45 to west of Drury Lane owned by Commonwealth Edison Company, not owned by the Lake County Forest Preserve District, splitting the Rollins Road Savannah Forest Preserve into two (2) separate parcels as referenced in a memo from Elizabeth D. Santis of Burke, Weaver & Prell, the predecessor law firm of Holland & Knight, to Mr. Kirk Smith, Zoning Officer, of the Village of Grayslake dated December 6, 1995 clearly and unambiguously shows that these facts were known by the village and its law firm but were intentionally suppressed. Contrary to the village’s contention that the “Motions to Reconsider do not set forth specific facts, which, if true, would support the existence of a meritorious defense. Instead, Sbarboro has simply proffered his own self-serving theory that he believes that the annexation was void” the motions to reconsider and this AMENDED REPLY BRIEF clearly establish meritorious facts in accordance with relevant Illinois State Statutes and case law. The facts previously established that the owner of record of the subject properties never authorized, signed, or submitted the original petition to annex, the amended petition to annex, or the annexation agreement is more than sufficient documentation to prove the properties are not and never were in the village. See Exhibits.

9.     That in Paragraph V, the village’s “SBARBORO FAILED TO EXERCISE ANY DILIGENCE.” contends that the Motions to Reconsider “are also deficient in that they contain no competent allegations demonstrating that Sbarboro showed any diligence in presenting these motions to the Court.”

10.         IN RESPONSE: On the contrary when the Defendant learned in February 2004 that the petition to annex, the amended petition to annex, and the annexation agreement were not legal documents, the Defendant promptly directed the lawyer, the Defendant had retained, to pursue this course of action. That lawyer’s refusal culminated in his withdrawing from the case and the Defendant filed his initial motion to redress the matter within days. In November 1995 the Defendant brought to the attention of the law firm that was handling the annexation procedure that the Defendant and his wife, Maria C. Sbarboro, were not the owners of record of the subject properties as shown in the AMENDED PETITION FOR ANNEXATION. That law firm proceeded to file with the village an amended petition to annex without the knowledge or approval of the owner of record of the subject properties, but with the full knowledge of and collusion with the village’s current law firm. The Defendants trusting to the expertise of those law firms followed their directions and signed what they thought were legitimate papers. See Exhibits.

11.         That in Paragraph VI, the village’s “SBARBORO’S COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE ANNEXATION IS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINES OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL AND UNCLEAN HANDS.” contends that “In the Annexation Agreement, the Sbarboros asserted that they were ‘the owners of records’ of the Subject Property…Now, however, the Sbarboros conveniently argue that they were not the owners of record. Under the equitable doctrine of unclean hands, a party who has been guilty of misconduct amounting to fraud or bad faith connected to the subject matter of litigation is barred from seeking any relief from a court in equity.”

12.         IN RESPONSE: The facts clearly show that the Sbarboros had no intention of nor did they condone or initiate any fraudulent action and that all fraudulent actions were perpetrated in this matter solely at the hands of the law firms who handled these matters for the Sbarboros, the village, and the Court. The village also contends “Estoppel is an equitable doctrine that is invoked to effectuate justice by precluding a party from benefiting from its own wrongdoing.” The records show, by way of the amended petition to annex, that the Sbarboros fully informed the attorneys and the village that they were not the owners of record of the subject property in November 1995; therefore, the only wrongdoing was not by the Sbarboros but has been perpetrated by the law firms involved, the village and the Court. That the village now contends that, “It is also undisputed that, at the time and since then, the village has relied on that representation and acted as if Sbarboro was being honest back in December 1995 when he claimed he and his wife were the record owners of the Subject Property.” The amended petition to annex totally abolishes that argument and furthermore proves that it is the village’s law firm that has totally perpetrated a fraud upon the Sbarboros and the village. The fact that the Defendant was not aware of the fraud committed by the attorneys and the village is punctuated by his belief at the time that the annexation agreement was a legitimate document and his bringing to the courts attention at the first hearing in this matter as reflected in the case records that the Defendants were not the owners of the subject property. See Exhibits.        

13.         That the village through it’s attorneys has throughout this entire matter created a bias against the Defendant by constantly emphasizing the fact that the Defendant is representing himself pro se thus playing on the inherent judicial prejudice in this district court against non-attorneys representing themselves. This is readily apparent by the sarcastic and belittling remarks constantly being utilized by Mr. James T. Mueller both verbally and in the motions he submits and the subsequent actions by Judges Margaret J. Mullins and David M. Hall.

14.         That since the properties in question were never legally annexed into the Village of Grayslake, the village never has had jurisdiction over these properties and any actions initiated by the village in reference to these properties are illegal and unlawful.

15.         That since the village and the Court have acted illegally and unlawfully, the Court should not have issued an order based on such unlawful and illegal acts, and the two (2) orders entered in this matter should and can be vacated forthwith.

Wherefore the Defendant, Joseph W. Sbarboro, respectfully request this court to act in accordance with the Illinois State Statutes, case law, and the facts cited by vacating the orders issued accordingly and all judgments against the Defendants.

Dated this 7^th day of March, 2005

Joseph W. Sbarboro

(847) 223-2498

Home

ARK Resources Computer Repair & Upgrades