Grants Plaintiff's Motion To RespondThe presiding Federal Court judge today upbraided attorneys for Cook County Board of Review Commissioners Joseph Berrios, Larry Rogers Jr., Brendan Houlihan, and their senior staff, for their conscious decision to ignore instructions, of the Court, to consolidate their answers to Plaintiff's charge of operating a 'continuing criminal enterprise' under the civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act. The judge had previously instructed the three law firms and fourteen lawyers for the defendants to file a consolidated answer in the interests of efficiency, economy and respect for the Court's schedule. The judge found defense counsel's argument that competing interests, among the defendants, required separate answers to be ineffectual. Plaintiff's counsel, R. Tamara de Silva's motion for leave to file a response to the defendant's two motions and a memorandum.
"We were pleased with the judge's decision which agreed with our contention that counsel for Mssrs. Berrios, Rogers Jr., Houlihan and their senior staff disregarded the Court's instructions,' R. Tamara de Silva, attorney for plaintiff, Victor Santana, stated, 'apparently, defendants' roster of attorneys believe their wishes supersede the instructions of a well-respected federal court judge."
"From the inception of this important case, we have attempted to respond to the suggestions and instructions of the presiding judge,' de Silva continued, 'we believe his stature, that of the Court and of these proceedings demand it."
"We appreciate that the judge granted our motion for a brief and respectful interval in which to answer defendants motions and memorandum, collectively comprising well more than fifteen pages stipulated for such pleadings,' de Silva added, 'We will use the time granted by the Court to sift through the superfluous narrative and ad hominem attacks, which consume a good deal of the defendants' counsels' tomes, and rebut those arguments that clearly misinterpret existing law."
"My client looks forward to the prosecution of this case; a case that carries broad implications for the constitutionally protected civil rights of private citizens, as well as, how those we entrust to ensure fairness and justice, in the administration of the 'Peoples' affairs, conduct themselves and the offices to which we elect them,' Ms. de Silva concluded.