Below are the litany of Attorney Krchak's "fibs" - I will post the actual police report that completely contradicts Attorney Krchak's statements to the ARDC.
The ARDC is an important organization that relies on the integrity of attorneys in Illinois.
The case that is being discussed is an alleged incident where at 2:15 am on Friday August 28, 1998, a vehicle supposedly was seen, a noise was heard and two very large metal traffic signs were found (undamaged) in a ditch.
No one witnessed the car striking the signs. And a witness (Brian Gramowski) was walking alone on a relatively major street in Champaign, Illinois. That witness worked with the Champaign City Attorneys Office to modify his memory to accommodate the prosecutor Rhonda Old's case after I filed case dispositive motions.
Champaign County Case Number 02-SC-696 was brought by City of Champaign, Illinois, Prosecutor Rhonda Olds as a small claims case against me on March 25, 2002. Ms. Olds’ allegation was based upon a faulty and unsubstantiated conclusion that since I damaged public property, I was legally liable for the cost of its repair. The problem with the case was the faulty conclusion upon which it was based – neither my car nor me was ever involved in the hit and run accident referred to in 02-SC-696.
Of course, as with any claim for monetary damages, there must first be a determination that the defendant is legally responsible and liable for the money owed. In this matter, I would never have been liable for the monetary damages alleged in the small claims case unless and until the underlying crime of “hit and run with damage to public property” was proven.
Prosecutor Rhonda Olds never established that I committed the crime of “hit and run with damage to public property.” At the time she filed the small claims case against me, Prosecutor Rhonda Olds implicitly (if not explicitly) represented to the Champaign County Circuit Court that I was guilty of the serious crime of “hit and run with damage to public property.” With that representation, I was denied the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to a criminal trial.
A prosecutor cannot begin the damages portion of the case without first establishing that a crime has been committed and that the defendant is guilty of committing that crime. But that is precisely what Prosecutor Rhonda Olds did in this case.
The following statements by City of Champaign Prosecutor Rhonda Olds are erroneous and are unsupported by any documents related to this case:
1. According to Attorney David Krchak and City of Champaign Prosecutor Rhonda Olds, “[o]n August 28, 1998, a vehicle damaged two signs belonging to the City of Champaign.” Ms Olds’ statement is inaccurate, misleading and unsupported by the police report or any other evidence. There is absolutely no proof, evidence or document that supports the statement.
Contrary to Attorney David Krchak and Ms. Olds’ allegation, the narrative of the City of Champaign police report specifically states that the responding officer “ . . . observed tire tracks on the south side of 505 Irvine. No damage noted to the property.”
The police report also specifically states: “It is unknown if this vehicle damaged the traffic control devices (West of 505 Irvine).”
Admittedly, there is a conflict between the officer’s detailed, thoughtful narrative and checked box on page one of the report that indicates “single property damaged over $500” in the affirmative. The box “hit and run” was likewise checked. But those checked marks were directly contradicted by
(a) The responding officer’s written, thoughtful narrative; and
(b) The Champaign Police Department’s lack of involvement at any level in the matter against me.
At no time did the City of Champaign Police Department interview me (much less charge me) with “hit and run with public property damage.”
2. According to Attorney David Krchak and City of Champaign Prosecutor Rhonda Olds, “[b]ased on the information available, the City sent Ms. Handy a bill for the damages in this case, $170.06.” Ms Olds’ statement is inaccurate, misleading and unsupported by the police report or any other evidence.
Neither Attorney David Krchak nor Ms. Olds identifies what they rely upon as “the information available.” Further, neither Attorney David Krchak nor Ms. Olds provide any evidentiary support for the allegation that a letter was in fact sent and/or received by me prior to the filing of Champaign County Case No. 02-SC-696.
3. According to Attorney David Krchak and City of Champaign Prosecutor Rhonda Olds, “[n]o response to that letter was received.” The statement is inaccurate, misleading and unsupported by the police report or any other evidence.
Neither Attorney David Krchak nor Ms. Olds provide any evidence of a “letter.” Further, they do not provide a date when the alleged letter was mailed. Moreover, neither Attorney David Krchak nor Prosecutor Olds provide the address to which the alleged letter was mailed and the precise manner of delivery (e.g. regular postal mail, certified mail or other.)
4. According to Attorney David Krchak and City of Champaign Prosecutor Rhonda Olds, “[o]ne witness saw a small dark vehicle drive through the witness’ yard immediately following the crash or crashes.” Once again, the statement is inaccurate and misleading.
There were two witnesses identified in the August 28, 1998, police report:
(a) Karen Walker, who related to the responding police officer that her address was 505 Irving, Champaign, Illinois and
(b) Brian Gramowski, who related to the responding officer that his “residence was in the neighborhood” and stated that his address was 2406 Hanover, Apartment 1, Champaign, Illinois.
Karen Walker stated to the responding officer that “ . . . she only saw a small dark vehicle drive through her yard after she heard a large crash.” According to the police report “[Ms. Walker] had no license information.” Ms. Walker does not indicate the direction of the vehicle’s travel and, contrary to Prosecutor Olds’ assertion, Ms. Walker certainly never reported that she “ . . . heard a collision between the vehicle and the signs.”
The only other witness was Brian Gramowski. Mr. Gramowski described himself to the officer as a “resident in the neighborhood.” However, Prosecutor Rhonda Olds apparently knew before she filed the case against me there was a serious contradiction regarding witness Gramowski’s address.
The City of Champaign Police Report identified Mr. Gramowski’s address as “2406 Hanover, Apt 1, Champaign.” However, based upon information I received in response to the FOIA request, Prosecutor Rhonda Olds researched Mr. Gramowski’s address in the November 2001 Champaign, Illinois, telephone book and determined that the address provided to the reporting police officer was not accurate as “2406 Hanover, Apt 1, Champaign.” Rather, Prosecutor Olds knew the address as “2406 High View Court, Champaign.”
Both of Brian Gramowski’s purported addresses began with “2406” and the telephone number was the same in both sources. Prosecutor Rhonda Olds never provided me with the correction or otherwise explained the error at any time during the course of the litigation.
The City of Champaign Police Report taken on August 28, 1998, specifically states: “Brian, resident in the neighborhood, related he observed a small, dark, blue vehicle . . . “ [emphasis added] The police report further states “Brian stated that the driver was a white female.”
Mr. Gramowski related to the responding officer that “[the dark blue vehicle was traveling] southbound on Duncan from Clayton with grass hanging from the rear passenger side.” Prosecutor Olds must have known that Brian Gramowski’s statement made no sense because given that direction of travel, the “signs” were located on the driver side of the subject vehicle. Why would grass hanging from the opposite side of the car even have mattered?
Moreover, contrary to Ms. Olds’ assertion to the ARDC, Mr. Gramowski never related to the responding police officer that he ever heard a crash.
5. According to Attorney David Krchak and City of Champaign Prosecutor Rhonda Olds, “[t]wo witnesses heard the collision between the vehicle and the signs.” Attorney David Krchak and Ms. Olds allege a statement that never appears in the police report or in any other evidentiary form. Simply put, no witness ever stated at any time that there was a collision between the subject vehicle and “the signs.”
Rather, the City of Champaign Police Report states “Karen, the owner of 505 Irvine, related she only saw a small dark vehicle drive through her yard after she heard a large crash.” The witness never stated that a collision occurred between a vehicle and “the signs” on or about 2:15 am on August 28, 1998.
Furthermore, witness Brian Gramowski (who describes himself to the responding officer as a resident in the neighborhood) told the police in the early hours of Friday August 28, 1998, “he observed a small dark blue vehicle with Illinois Registration MPF 113 southbound on Duncan from Clayton with grass hanging from the rear passenger side.” [Emphasis added]
My small claims interrogatories addressed the issue of what the witnesses observed. I inquired why Brian Gramowski was walking on Duncan Avenue in Champaign, Illinois at 2:15 am on a Friday morning and specifically asked whether he had been consuming alcohol prior to the alleged incident. I did not receive the answers to any of my interrogatory questions directed to witness Mr. Gramowski either during the case or in response to the FOIA request.
6. According to Attorney David Krchak and City of Champaign Prosecutor Prosecutor Rhonda Olds, “[t]he City and Ms. Handy filed a joint Motion to Dismiss the case . . . “ Once again, Attorney David Krchak and Ms. Olds plainly misstate the facts.
In fact “Exhibit A” to Mr. Krchak’s response is a true and correct copy of a document prepared by Prosecutor Rhonda Olds. The language of “Exhibit A” is clear that the Judge is entering the “Motion of the Plaintiff” to dismiss the matter with prejudice. Ms. Olds chose that language because the motion was in fact the Plaintiff’s motion as opposed to a joint motion.
We both signed the Plaintiff’s motion in order to avoid the need for an additional court hearing. But nothing changes the fact that case was not dismissed until October 25, 2004, a full 2.5 years after I was served with the complaint. That was a very long time for Prosecutor Rhonda Olds to maintain the charade of this case, including manufacturing facts through witness affidavits to continue the prosecution.
7. According to Attorney David Krchak and City of Champaign Prosecutor Rhonda Olds, I filed several motions and other documents in the matter.
In Ms. Olds’ November 10, 2009, response to the ARDC, she lists the efforts I made to defend myself. I am a firm believer that a finder of fact is best served with the entire document. The entire docket sheet is available at https://secure.jtsmith.com/clerk/yytt331s.asp
Ms. Olds’ purpose in including a listing of my defense filings is unclear. Certainly, I attempted to defend against a claim that was unsupported by the City of Champaign Police Report and contradicted by the lack of action pursued by the City of Champaign Police Department. As the docket sheet reveals, Prosecutor Rhonda Olds pursued this matter vigorously from March 2002 until the actual dismissal in November 2004.
I take the allegation of “hit and run with public property damage” very seriously. This was always more than a small claims case because liability would have never existed unless and until the underlying crime was proven.
The small claims case (which ironically commenced after my ARDC disciplinary case became public) began with the conclusion that I committed a vehicular hit and run and damaged public property. Making that conclusion was more than inappropriate.
The timing of the prosecution correlated to the ARDC case against me. As such, prosecution seemed to be implicitly arguing that: because the ARDC filed an ethics complaint against me, I was obviously guilty of the hit and run (or certainly I should not be given the constitutional presumption of innocence). The prosecution was (and remains) an attack on my honesty, integrity and character.
During the course of the prosecution, I told Ms. Olds that I would file an appeal with the Fourth District Appellate Court on an adverse decision. I also demanded the answers to the small claims discovery. Not surprisingly, I never received the responses to requests for discovery or the answers to interrogatories. Rather than provide me with the discovery responses, Ms. Olds telephoned me and explained that she would dismiss the matter with prejudice.
One pleading that I am proud of filing was the motion to engage in small claims discovery. The City of Champaign Prosecutor Rhonda Olds fought against my motion for small claims discovery. Although the court ruled in my favor and allowed the small claims discovery, Ms. Olds never complied with the court’s order. But in response to my FOIA requests, I learned that Prosecutor Rhonda Olds was in fact working with the witnesses on answers to my interrogatories.
I could ascertain from the FOIA responses that I still have not received all of the information relating to the small claims discovery. Despite the November 6, 2002, letter from Ms. Olds’ office to witness Brian Gramowski referring specifically to draft interrogatory answers, I never received any discovery related to Mr. Gramowski during the pendency of the case or in response to my recent FOIA request.
More than four years after the alleged incident, Ms. Olds literally altered the facts (via witness statements) to defeat my viable defense that I was exonerated based upon the plain language of the City of Champaign Police Department. That strategy is inappropriate, unethical and exemplifies prosecutorial abuse of power and misconduct.
On or about October 24, 2002 (more than four years after the alleged accident), I filed a dispositive motion based in part on the fact that my car with the Illinois plate number “MPF 113” was at all times “black cherry” in color and never, as witness Mr. Brian Gramowski described, “blue” in color.
Through my FOIA request, I received a portion of documents from Prosecutor Rhonda Olds' file on this case. I learned from the responses that immediately after I filed the dispositive motion, Prosecutor Rhonda Olds prepared two different versions of an affidavit for witness Brian Gramowski to review and sign.
One of Ms. Olds’ affidavits for witness Brian Gramowski was particularly helpful for her to defend against my motion because the statements therein were much more specific than the report that witness gave to the police officer immediately after the accident.
The affidavit Prosecutor Olds chose to use the affidavit signed by Mr. Gramowski that added the facts:
(a) The driver had blonde hair,
(b) Given the lighting at the time, the car could have been a color other than blue, and
(c) The car was driving erratically and he heard a crash.
Witness Brian Gramowski’s testimony by affidavit contradicted his report to the police four years earlier. The facts recalled more than four years after the incident were unusually helpful fashion for the prosecution. According to Ms. Olds’ affidavits for Brian Gramowski, whereas the lack of lighting may have prevented witness Mr. Gramowski from determining the vehicle’s paint color, that same lack of lighting contributed to Mr. Gramowski’s four year delayed recall that the driver’s hair color was blonde.
The issue of hair color was never mentioned by any witness, especially Brian Gramowski, in the police report or at any time between August 28, 1998, and the date I filed my dispositive motion. Furthermore, Ms. Olds presented no evidence whatsoever regarding my hairstyle (either length or color) in August 1998.
In fact, on Friday August 28, 1998 at approximately 2:15 am, the sky conditions were between changing from clear to mostly cloudy in Champaign, Illinois. http://snipie.com/xiw Other than Ms. Olds’ affidavits for witness Brian Gramowski prepared in November 2002, Ms. Olds never presented any evidence regarding artificial lighting on the street or illuminating into the subject vehicle.
The witness cooperated with the prosecutor’s office by signing both versions of the November 2002 affidavit prepared by Prosecutor Rhonda Olds describing the alleged accident. However, Attorney Rhonda Olds only provided the court with the version that would change the facts sufficiently to defeat my dispositive motion. The failure to provide the court with both versions of the affidavit was dishonest and misled the court.
Ms. Olds failed to address my request that the ARDC investigate the fact that she continued to prosecute the case
(1) Despite the lack of specific evidence of the underlying “hit and run with public property damage” crime; and
(2) Despite Ms. Olds’ manipulation of witness statements. I am concerned that Prosecutor Rhonda Olds abused her public trust, deceived the court, manipulated the criminal process and violated ethical standards.
- I learned from the FOIA responses that on 08/06/2002 and 0009/06/2002, Prosecutor Rhonda Olds’ office sent Brian Gramowski a copy of the answers to interrogatories that I propounded. I never received those proposed answers either during the pendency of the case or in response to the FOIA request.
- During the case, I requested that the subject vehicle be examined for damage and that some proof of paint transfer damage to the signs be provided. I never received those answers either during the pendency of the case or in response to the FOIA request.
- Prosecutor Rhonda Olds never provided evidence beyond (a) the original witness statements to the responding officer and (b) the revised witness statement of Brian Gramowski prepared by Ms. Olds. Specifically, Ms. Olds revised the witness statements and thereby altered the evidence in this case by creating an affidavit that changed the color of the car because of poor lighting while at the same time adding the color of the driver’s hair under the same poor lighting.
- While I was attempting to defend myself against the baseless claim, the ARDC in Springfield. Illinois began examining my defense in this very matter and suggested that any defense was dishonest to the court. Despite that added pressure, I continued to defend the matter vigorously.
- Ms. Olds denied contacting the ARDC about the matter. I am certainly not a conspiracy theorist, but it would be helpful to understand why the City of Champaign was so determined to prosecute me on this small claims matter where the basis for the liability was never addressed.
- The only common denominator that I am aware of between the ARDC, the City of Champaign and myself was then Champaign City Councilman (1999-2004) and now Thomas, Mamer & Haughey partner James D. Green. I know from the ARDC Springfield prosecutor that Mr. Green was having conversations about the ARDC regarding my practice of law during the time period of the City of Champaign small claims case.
- But the Thomas Mamer & Haugey partner/past Champaign County City Councilman’s extraordinary interest in my leaving the practice of law only suggests a link to timing of the lawsuit (after notice appeared in the local newspaper and during my ARDC trial in August 2002). The ethical prosecutorial misconduct issues still remain with Ms. Olds. It was ultimately the City of Champaign Prosecutor’s decision whether to pursue the matter.
- If there was indeed a “hit and run with public property damage” by an actively practicing attorney in Champaign County, then that attorney should have been interviewed by the Champaign Police department and the subject vehicle should have been examined. I do not commit crimes and I take the allegation of hit and run with property damage very seriously.
- Certainly, the City of Champaign Police Department could have located my vehicle and determined whether it was involved in an accident. Maybe the responding officer did. I attempted to contact the officer but was not permitted to speak with that individual (employed by the City of Champaign).
- If there were truly a ”hit and run with public property damage,” Ms. Olds best (and perhaps only necessary) witness would have been the responding officer. I was not provided any information in response to the FOIA request that even remotely suggested that Ms. Olds ever attempted to contact or communicate with the responding City of Champaign police officer.
- The responding City of Champaign police officer could have and would have described whether he investigated the matter further by examining the subject vehicle.
- The officer could have also explained why he did not even interview and certainly never arrested me on this allegation. I maintain that the police did not arrest me because the City of Champaign Police Department knew that my vehicle was never involved in this alleged incident.
- The responding City of Champaign police officer could have also supplemented his report to note where (if any) the street lightening was located, where the witnesses were positioned, and the travel path of the vehicle.
- Perhaps the officer did speak to Ms. Olds and the officer’s statements did not assist her prosecution of me. However, no such evidence was ever presented to the court and the FOIA responses revealed no officer contact by Ms. Olds.
- Again, “hit and run with public property damage” is a serious allegation – especially against an officer of the court. And, let us be honest. Ms. Denise Church (Springfield ARDC) was notified by someone about the matter. Ms. Church is a thorough and effective attorney. If Ms. Church had reason to believe that I committed the crime of “hit and run with public property damage,” that allegation would have indeed been included in the other allegations against me in time for the August 2002 ARDC trial.
A prosecutor has enormous power and influence on both the community and in the courtroom. A prosecutor possesses a position of public trust. And when that trust is misused by pursuing a matter that amounts to a criminal prosecution (“hit and run with property damage”) under the guise of “small claims,” the public trust and the integrity of the prosecutorial system is tarnished. Shame on the City of Champaign and Ms. Olds.
The City of Champaign would have the ARDC believe that this is merely a small claims case. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that there would be no small claims matter unless I committed a hit and run with damage to public property. Ms. Olds’ allegation that I owe money for property damage pre-supposes that I am guilty of a hit and run with public property damage.
Absent any explanation (of how I could owe money based on a hit and run with property damage without first proving the underlying crime) reduces this matter to malicious prosecution and harassment. Indeed, absent any explanation, this matter remains an unfortunate example of “piling on” by vigorously and unethically pursuing a malicious prosecution against a physically injured attorney with a pending ARDC issue.
Shame on Thomas, Mamer & Haughey Partner David Krchak (and his client, Rhonda Olds) for failing to discuss the case honestly with the ARDC. Mr. Krchak's dishonesty in this regard damages the integrity of the ARDC disciplinary process and the subjects the public to "bad attorneys" and dishonorable prosecutors.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment