Ald. Shiller's son Brendan certainly has staked out his law practice specialty area. Here is his latest anti-cop suit:Suit accuses Burnham of Using Unqualified Officer
Police Chief says Auxiliary Officer Met Requirements
A Chicago man is suing Burnham, claiming the officer who arrested him was not qualified. Brendan Shiller, a lawyer representing Joseph Ivancich, recently filed the lawsuit against the village, Burnham Police Chief Peter Belos, Sgt. Jack Daley and Thomas Gunther, a former auxiliary officer.
For more of this story, click here. We wonder if this lawsuit will turn out better for Brendan than the one a while back where he sued the police for killing a woman who - it turned out - was shot with her own gun by one of her relatives.
Lawyers who sue the police are even worse than defense lawyers who represent heinous rapists and murders. They are typically very sleazy anti-authority individuals who have criminal interests themselves.
ReplyDeleteChicagocitizen, you mean if you had the misfortune to happen upon a police officer who did abuse his authority or acted in patently criminal manner (slinging a female bartender around, running over and killing civilians while drunk, for eg.,), and injured you, no lawsuit should be filed to hold the officer and the CPD accountable? Officers are human beings under the uniform, and while most are good, the few who are not acting in accordance with their badge and the public trust instilled in them should be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteIf you work as a public defender, you do encounter some horrific situations, but, like it or not, all citizens, even those you'd consider slime, have a constitutional right to an attorney when accused by the State of a crime. Defense attorneys are often there as a check on the State's authority, to ensure that if a prosecution occurs, it is done so in accordance with the law, not because they love rapists and murders (or any other criminal or criminal behavior). God forbid, if you were accused of wrong-doing, you would certainly want a lawyer to ensure that you were treated fairly (even if you did what you were accused of).
I assume this lawsuit is an affront because Shiller's son is representing the plaintiff. Anything a Shiller touches I suppose is automatically suspect, according to most of the regular UU readers. However, there are real abuses out there that attorneys who have been in the trenches longer than Shiller are keenly aware of. Shouldn't let your knee-jerk hatred of all things Shiller prevent you from seeing that. Attorneys who work as public defenders and as prosecutors can and will tell you that while some cases are frivolous, there's quite a few abuse cases that have merit.
NeighborLady, Brendan Shiller has made it his niche practice to sue the police, even when the evidence is overwhelming that the police are not at fault or even involved. The reason this interests me is that his mother is widely known to despise CAPS (unless Mayor Daley is around and it's election time and she can set up a sham CAPS meeting that involves none of the beat coordinators -- in other words, a dog and pony show), so it's always interesting to see how the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
ReplyDeleteNot arguing that there are occasionally bad cops and that their victims have the right to a defense, but it is interesting to me that the son of a City of Chicago alderman is repeatedly the one to accuse them of crimes and file the lawsuits.
Especially when it's the same attorney who says he's lazy and careless in response to citizens' questions about a rezoning that still hasn't been fully explained.
Especially when it's an attorney who works to get his mother's opponents thrown off the ballot.
Not trying to defeat anyone's POV on Shiller or her son--I know that's a losing proposition on this board, even if I were inclined to do so. My point is let's not use the anti-Shiller rhetoric to try to give the impression that all suits against police brutality are without merit. There seems to be a sentiment expressed by some posters that if people would just stop suing the police, then the police could do their jobs, which is BS. The police can certainly do their jobs at the same time that proper measures are taken to remove police officers who are abusing their authority--the two do not go hand in hand. Imagine a doctor saying, well I can't operate because people file so many med mal lawsuits--so if you'd just stop doing that, you know, then I could do my job. They'd be laughed out of the profession.
ReplyDeleteYou'd be surprised at how promptly truly frivolous lawsuits are dispensed with. The ones that proceed further through the system typically have merit. People file all kinds of frivolous lawsuits, and they usually go away fairly quietly and don't hamper anyone from carrying out their duties.
My other point was the ridiculous statement Chi-citizen made about defense attorneys and people who sue police officers. Basically, everyone hates lawyers until they think they need one. Trust me, the young female bartender who was battered by a police officer like a ragdoll(caught on tape) probably thinks her lawyer is a pretty decent person--who probably has no beef against police in general. Honestly, you think a lawsuit against that officer and others who would behave like him is frivolous? Plus, I know very few PDs who love criminals. They seek to uphold the law, just like good prosecutors and police officers. This ridiculous wholesale bashing adds nothing to whatever issues anyone may have have with Shiller or her son.
well, anyway, I like Brendan better when he is attempting to make a living picking the pockets of police depts. instead of developers in his mommy's ward
ReplyDeleteguess his attempt to break into the exciting & lucrative world of Chicago zoning lobbyist kinda flopped
My comment was by no means intended to defend the police. If the police violate the law, or their authority, they should be held accountable. What I absolutely hate is the scumbag lawyers who are so quick to file action against the police, and even more when the city settles quickly to make it go away.
ReplyDeleteA recent point in case: the 18-y.o. who was killed by the CPD after pointing a loaded .357 at them. He was on probation for a prior gun conviction. Of course, his family filed suit against the city. How does this lawyer look at himself/herself in the mirror? You point a gun at the police, you deserve to be erased and your family does not deserve one cent.
My fairly informed opinion is that Mr. Shiller is a scumbag self-serving opportunist just like his mother.
And you are aware that in all of Chicago, Shiller is not the only attorney who files lawsuits on behalf of clients against the police? Maybe there's a little bit of fire behind that smoke.
ReplyDeleteChicagocitizen, the fact that a person was on probation does not automatically make them at fault. Don't know the facts of your case, but there was a recent case of 18-year-old Aaron Harrison where it was disputed whether or not the 18-year's back was to the police--the Chicago med examiner found that he was shot in the back. i.e., moving away from the police. The police say that's not so. So an attorney seeing a dispute with some evidence supporting the family's position that the police used unnecessary force would not be scum. Again, uninformed blanket statements don't make your arguments against Shiller or attorneys who file police brutality lawsuits any stronger.
ReplyDeleteI was at that shooting. the offender, who tried to kill a policeman, was shot in the side. The medical examiner used the terminology of his profession, in which any wound to the rear of the centerline of the body is labeled "posterior" It is entirely possible to fire a pistol at someone as you run away, and that is what happened that night. one of the officers there that night with me has still not returned to work from injuries sustained during the gang riot which followed the shooting. I am sure your opinion is well-intended, but you obviously have never had to deal with these sorts of situations. I am not even going to dignify your medical malpractice analogy-lawsuits are not the issue, an internal discipline system which crucifies good cops who have done no wrong so that they can appear to be tough on misconduct while simultaneously allowing incompetents and criminals to keep their badges because of clout is. Abbate was detested by every good cop I know long before the bar incident ever happened, but was allowed to do whatever he wanted because of clout. Ponder the true meaning of the famous quote by George Orwell "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." before you lecture people on a profession you don't understand.
ReplyDeleteThe arrest took place in 2006? Two years ago? The town of Burnham? It must have taken him a lot to dig this one up. His biggest ploy is to offer to settle out of court for a bit less than it would cost the city to go to trial. He's a leech feeding of the poor. It's a family tradition
ReplyDeleteUptown Blue - God bless you and your men/women as you try to keep us safe.
ReplyDeleteYou're 100% right that stupid lawsuits and community groups running unchecked over the police as Daley/Weiss stand by are one of the reasons crime is up.
Police are now dis-incentivized (is that a word?) to take the initiative.
It appears that we've gotten the police force our liberal leaders wanted us to have all along. Sad.
uptown blue, my point was directed at the individual who said all lawyers who take on lawsuits complaining of police brutality are scum. therefore, lawsuits, not internal disciplinary procedures, were made the point, and that's what I responded to.
ReplyDeleteYour Orwell quote notwithstanding, the logic that lawsuits prevent police from doing their jobs in accordance with the standards we as a society purport to adhere to is ludicrous, as would as doctor who refuses to execute his duty for fear of litigation. Please do not condescend to me and try to paint me as someone who is unaware that violence and force is sometimes necessary to bring peace. Necessary force and brutality are two issues and standard, so stop trying to mash the two together.
It might help if some of these good cops would stop protecting the bad cops by their silence, but that's not going to happen--so other than lawsuits, what other mechanism do you suggest to weed out the Abbates of the police world? Your own response demonstrates why some people perceive the CPD as they do--you admit they protect bad cops, who are set loose in these communities. Then when the inevitable happens--bad cop behaves badly--we get postings saying lawsuits render police incapable of doing their jobs, instead of acknowledging that maybe official police silence about bad cops in its ranks makes it harder on the force as a whole.
This is different, by the way, from the legal profession, where lawyers are basically under an official duty to "snitch" on a lawyer they know is engaging in wrongful conduct. So much for the legal profession being slimy.
All the legal jargon aside, doesn't everyone find it somewhat smarmy, to say the least, that Helen's son is associated with these ambulance-chasing deals?
ReplyDeleteThe nut doesn't fall far from the tree, as they say.
The only reason this case is getting any attention at all is because B. Shiller is on it. No one knows the merits of it--and when I click the article on the case, it actually is somewhat compelling. AN elderly man stopped by a possibly pseudo-cop while getting medicine for his wife. First, if you take a look at the article (instead of immediately foaming at the mention of a Shiller), it is not hard to understand why he'd want to take on the case. 72 year old man on the way to get medicine for his cancer-stricken wife pulled over and arrested by a possible "pseudo cop" and getting his vehicle impounded? Not exactly a dreg of society.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if the allegations are true--i.e., the guy has no authority to arrest--then the person absolutely should not be held out as an officer of the law.
Whatever you think about B. Shiller, this does not sound like a guy trying to represent "scum" in this case.
What's really intertaining is to go back and read the Shillerista inspired- lady tied to the train tracks or my daughter had to throw herself onto the baby to protect it from gun fire (boo hoo)crap-- from previous cases. The great thing for our Mr. B is few cases go to trial. He never has to prove any of the crap.
ReplyDeleteI hear our Mr. B is going to take up the defense of "wide stance" senators caught in bathroom naughtiness by the evil police.
Neighbor lady,
ReplyDeleteBefore you complain about my response, reread my post. It is not the rank and file protecting the cops with clout, it is the city.
And you either do not have enough information, or are basing your opinion on your own prejudices. A case in point, there was a recent lawsuit alleging two officers used a screwdriver to sodomize a prisoner. A lab report was obtained for said screwdriver, which stated that there was NO trace of human fecal matter on the screwdriver. There was carbon on the blade, which is a chemical found in many substances, such as asphalt, and human feces. The trial judge would not allow the lab report explained, and the lawyer for the plaintiff capitalized on the fact that a "chemical found in human feces" was on the screwdriver. The two policemen were assessed punitive damages, which come out of their own pockets, and for which-unlike the doctors you use in your analogy-they have no "police malpractice insurance" to pay it with. I have personally been sued many times, as have most other working police, and every time, no matter how groundless or spurious the suit, there is the nagging fear that this might be the time the chamber is loaded on this social game of Russian roulette. And despite your assertion to the contrary, the frivolity of a lawsuit does not guarantee that it is disposed of quickly, or at all.
And, returning to the topic of who is deigning to condescend to whom, your last point about the legal profession being above corruption because the bar requires them to "snitch" is laughable to anyone with more than a passing experience with our legal system, both criminal and civil.
The irony of our exchange is that I have no real issue with your original post at 9:44. But in your attempts to defend a reasonable position, you have revealed a bias and either only a casual second-hand knowledge, or an agenda. I have been sued, numerous times. I have been shot at, and have had to fight for my life, with weapons and without. I have been lied about in the media, and in court. I have had to defend my reputation and career against baseless accusations with the cold and certain knowledge that in the name of political expediency I could be sacrificed by the city whether I am at fault or not. And none of these experiences are unique or even rare among the working police. We do a job you wouldn't do if someone gave you a million dollars, and we do it for far less. And we will keep doing it, but until people wake up and stop crucifying working policemen in the media, in court, and in the department's out of control disciplinary process, we are not going to be able to do our jobs properly. We need the city to back us when we are right, whether or not it "looks bad" in the media because someone lies about what happened. Until that happens, most of us will do only what they are required to do. And since I am reasonably certain you wouldn't even do the bare minimum, since it requires personal risk and tough choices, and you might have to see reality for what it is, rather than what you would have it be.
The issue is not the protection afforded by defense lawyers, or civil litigation, or a civilian complaint process. Those are all reasonable and necessary. Another favorite quote of mine is "Qui custodiat ipsos custodes?" ("Who will guard us from the guardians?") And I believe that checks upon social power are crucial to prevent abuses. The underlying issue that has brought us to our current social crisis, and I do think it is a crisis, is the criminal elements ability under current social trends to manipulate the court system and the media in order to protect themselves and strike back at the police.
There are other problems as well, but they don't seem germane to your original argument, and I have probably been long-winded enough already. The bottom line is simply that if you and those like you weren't so quick to judge without sufficient facts those willing to put themselves in harm's way to protect you, then you would receive more protection. And, next time you want to rebut that with veiled contempt about our job, I suggest you pick up a badge and a gun and hop in an unmarked car with me and see how well you fare when the risk isn't academic.
Thanks Uptownblue. You presented a much clearer picture of the root of the problem that's making it difficult to address issues of safety in a community. People scream corruption and it's easier to pick on the police rather than deal with the real root of the issue.
ReplyDeleteWhile someone being on probation for a gun case does not, in and of itself, indicate guilt on the next shooting case. But, it does prove a track record of gun and criminal involvement from an early age. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. What does fully show that this kid deserved to be blasted by the CPD is the fact that a loaded .357 was found next to his body. And his family - and their lawyer - has the audacity to sue the city?!!? I am completely disgusted and outraged by the idea that they would even consider suing, and even more upset by the prospect that the city might give the family a payout just to make it go away.
ReplyDelete"the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior"
ReplyDeletehey, does any one know what's happened with the chicago police torture cases? it's no longer contested by the city, state's attorneys, federal prosecuters, etc. that cpd officers systematically tortured over 100 african american people in Chicago from the 70's to the 90's. yet NOBODY has been charged with a crime! hopefully the feds will come out with some indictments soon.
i guess the politicians and lawyers that do nothing but target cops all day for frivolous matters missed all those cases. or maybe the system is not as biased against cpd officers that engage in misconduct as some people think.
google the report put out by the University of Chicago Law School and Craig Futterman about police misconduct in Chicago and the lack of accountability, it's incredible.
the cpd will never have credibility in the eyes of many people in chicago until those involved in police torture are prosecuted and until the "good cops" stop copvering for the "bad cops". i know that's not an easy thing for a cop to do (report misconduct of another cop) but a total change in culture of the cpd is the only thing that will give them more credibility in many communities.
one group that has helped in raising the standard of the cpd is the African American Police League, we need more groups like that, more lawyers willing to take on police misconduct cases and more ordinary people working to hold our government and its agents accountable for what they do.
Ron, just curious, this is not an attack. Does Brendan Shiller belong to Copwatch?
ReplyDeleteAfrican-American Police League doing what? Tell me your kidding. Please. NOBODY can be that naive!
ReplyDeleteBTW, Uptownblue is spot on with his description of the trial involving the Police Officers accused of sodomizing the prisoner with a screwdriver. I know because I testified at that trial. If you don't think the deck was stacked against those Officers, then I have some swamp, er I mean land I'd like to sell to you. Those Officers didn't have a chance, the deck was stacked against them from the very minute the trial began. And the sad thing about is that they were two of the best Officers I've ever seen and that ever worked in the district that they were assigned to. But no more. I don't know where they are now but I hope they are active in the new de-policing concept, a concept brought about by people like Mr. Schiller and those that support him or find him credible.
ReplyDeleteBurnham Auxiliary Police Officer cases over. Lawyers do what they always do. Suck as much money out of the insurance co. as possible. And then settle the case out of court and justice is not served. It is not about who is right or wrong, only about the money. Burnham Auxiliary Police Officer was fair and honest and very qualified. I know this Auxiliary Officer had over 120 Hrs of training. Paid Part-time police officers need only 400 Hrs of training, to be completed in 18 months. I know this Auxiliary Officer was trained in Indiana and had Full Police Power. And still has a 24 Hr. 7 day a week carry card from the state of Illinois.
ReplyDeleteChicago arrest him once for carrying his gun and the Cook County states attorney and Chicago lost the case. He should of sued them. If you do not believe me check the records.