One year since Drew Peterson’s arrest for murder. What has changed?

Drew Peterson as a free man, and in different company on the day of his arrest, May 7, 2009

One year ago, Drew Peterson was arrested and charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Since that day he has resided at the the Will County Adult Detention Facility in Joliet awaiting his trial which is scheduled to begin next month. We’ve continued to follow the case as the year has passed, but what has changed since May 7, 2009?

Legal Representation

A year ago: Brodsky & Odeh, Abood Law, and John Paul Carroll represented Drew Peterson. George D. Lenard joined the case in December of 2009.
Today: Andrew Abood and George Lenard withdrew from the case in April of this year, citing irreconcilable differences with Joel Brodsky. John Paul Carroll had a complaint filed against him in September and appears to have left the case. Presently, attorneys from Brodsky & Odeh, Steven A. Greenberg and Associates, Law Offices of Meczyk Goldberg, Joseph R. Lopez, P.C., and Walter P. Maksym Jr. make up the “Seven Samurai” representing Peterson in court.

Media Exposure

A year ago: When Drew was arrested, he was preparing to fly out to the Bunny Ranch Brothel in Reno, Nevada, to see if he would be a good fit as head of security there. Drew’s last interview was given over the phone to a WLS radio show host, Eric Mancow Muller, from jail on May 27, 2009. He also gave one other in-jail phone interview on May 15, to Matt Lauer of the Today show.
Today: Drew is presently not allowed to give interviews to the press.

Judges

A year ago: Judge Richard Schoenstedt was first assigned to the case; then Judge Carla Alessio-Policandriotes and finally Judge Stephen White. Will County Chief Judge Gerald Kinney made the new appointments. Judge Daniel J. Rozak set Peterson’s bond.
Today: Judge Stephen White presides over the case but is expected to retire in October of this year.

Public Act 095-1004 – The so-called “Hearsay law”

A year ago: The Act was passed into legislation November, 2008
Today: In October 2009, Peterson’s defense lost a motion to declare the act unconstitutional

$20 Million Bail

A year ago: After Peterson’s bail was set at $20 million, the defense filed a motion to reduce it on May 22, 2009.
Today: In June, the Appellate Court denied the petition to reduce Peterson’s $20 million bond.

Change of Venue

A year ago: In July 2009, Drew Peterson’s attorneys filed a motion seeking a change of venue for their client.
Today: The request was denied and 240 potential jurors for the murder trial were brought into Will County court and asked to complete questionnaires

In January 2010, Judge White held a series of hearings to help him decide which, if any, of fifteen hearsay statements would be allowed in the upcoming trial.
The hearings were public and testimony brought out a number of new revelations. Among them:

  • A cable worker testified that Peterson solicited him to find someone to kill Kathleen Savio.
  • A school friend of Stacy Peterson’s testified that she told him Drew had killed Kathleen Savio.
  • A lawyer consulted by Stacy Peterson in the days before her disappearance testified that Stacy told him that she thought her husband was mad at her because he believed she told his son he had killed his ex-wife. She also wondered if she’d be able to extort money from Drew Peterson if she threatened to go to police.
  • The lead ISP investigator of Kathleen Savio’s death scene testified that he never considered her death anything other than an accident so he never took any forensic evidence from the scene and never bothered to talk with her family. He admitted he had never investigated a homicide before and said it didn’t occur to him the body may have been staged in the tub.
  • An evidence technician testified that he didn’t see bruises on Kathleen Savio’s body, and if he had that they would have been insignificant
  • Kathleen Savio’s friends and neighbors who were first to discover her body testified that they thought it was strange that there were no towels, clothes or a bath mat in the bathroom.
  • The lead ISP investigator testified that he extended “professional courtesy” to Peterson because of his status as a police officer, and allowed him to sit next to Stacy, while she gave investigators an alibi for where Peterson was at the time of Savio’s death.
  • An ISP officer said that he voiced his concerns about the way the interview was handled, the answers that were given by Drew and his wife, and the fact that their testimony seemed scripted, but his objections were ignored.
  • Drew’s oldest son testified that he witnessed an altercation between his father and Kathleen Savio during which Drew dragged her by her hair.
  • A coworker of Drew’s testified that during the time of Drew and Kathleen’s divorce, Drew told him, “my life would be a lot easier if she were dead or died.”
Drew’s Love Life

A year ago: Christina Raines was at the house that Drew and Stacy Peterson shared at the time or his arrest and was also taken into custody. She removed her belonging from his home shortly afterwards. Raines is on the list to visit Drew in jail.
Today: In January Raines posted a status update on her Facebook page stating, “I met someone who i fell in love with and very happy with. I think i just about gave up on drew with all his lies i dont even really visit him anymore.” and then, “But his kids i love dearly and still visit with them they are good kids”

Stacy Peterson

A year ago: Missing. No communication from her since October 28, 2007. Searches were ongoing.
Today: Still missing with no sightings or communication from her. Searches continue.

Sources for this recap include the many news stories covering the case this past year as well as our own research and first-hand courtroom observations. Much more happened (allegations of sexual abuse, a biographer citing journalistic privilege to get out of testifying, more motions from the defense which were denied, etc.) but we had to stop somewhere!

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~ Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

About these ads

109 thoughts on “One year since Drew Peterson’s arrest for murder. What has changed?

  1. I guess you are all “Airhens”, according to other sources, and know nothing. LOL This is still the best read, after all this time, to find out what is going on. Thanks for everyone’s effort to keep this case up to date. Airhens…who comes up with something like that??? Wait, its people that talk to themselves. UUUUgh

  2. Well, just remember, if ever you’re a court watcher, only talk to the Mother Clucker herself, and not us mere airhens. Oh, and don’t talk to Hosey either, because he’s not on the Brodsky Good Boy List.

    Just havin’ some fun…………

  3. oooh and shhhh. now the Airhens weight has gone up over the past year. But, if you are an airhen, aren’t you just like “weightless? being “Air” and all?? Jesus, I really have to questions some peoples IQ’s. but then again, I’d rather not. I need to stop before I get angrier and maybe post something over THERE

  4. I was thinking of including Drew’s skin condition as one of the new developments since a year ago, but I don’t know that he didn’t go into jail with a rash, you know? Don’t want to make an assumption like that…

  5. I really do need to stop thinking about all this tonight. I have never seen such a cluster*** as over there. I am sorry if I interrupted anything with my being disgusted outburst. I rarely post, but sometimes I just cannot help myself. Thanks again to you Airhens, that I can follow what is really going on in this case

  6. LMAO I think in this case is Exlaw on a roll. Give me an airhen in the sky anytime. Heck I might even invite the airhen to take a bath in my pond and join me for dinner…

  7. Thanks again, LA. We love the positive feedback and are really pleased with the following and great comments we get from many people involved with the case (even a defense attorney or two). It makes up for the lousy pay! ;)

  8. My apologies really….I will stop posting now. I would rather get back to real news on the case than this bull that just drives me batty.

  9. Oh, don’t apologize, lostacres. I think the more people that read here and become acquainted with that silly Mother Clucker, the better. It’s a sinking party anyway.

    Yeah, back to the real news.

  10. Year after arrest, Peterson eager for trial

    May 6, 2010

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com
    JOLIET — For a man who had gotten in the habit of jetting to both coasts for TV appearances, entertaining offers to star in reality shows and welcoming media crews into his home for lavish photo shoots, Drew Peterson’s last year has been a long, lonely one.

    Locked up by himself for exactly 12 months today, about all the 56-year-old Peterson has to look forward to is his upcoming murder trial, slated to start June 14. And he does appear eager to see it start, said Pat Barry, spokesman for the Will County Sheriff’s Department, which is the agency tasked with keeping Peterson in custody while he awaits his day in court.

    “I think he figures he’s going to get out,” Barry said of Peterson’s desire to see his case get under way.

    The time Peterson has been doing has not been all that easy.

    Since he was arrested for allegedly murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, Peterson has been held in the medical wing of the county jail. Sheriff Paul Kaupas’ decision to stick Peterson in medical has nothing to do with any sort of ailment; the serial marrier and alleged wife killer was put there supposedly for his own safety.

    Since he is in protective custody, Peterson spends his days in solitude but for the correctional officers whose job it is to guard him. Peterson sees no other prisoners, male or female, Barry said.

    The loneliness seems to have worn Peterson down, as he has looked increasingly haggard when he has been brought to court for his numerous pretrial hearings in the year since he was arrested. But Barry said the jail’s most famous inmate has not groused about his accommodations.

    “To my understanding he’s doing OK,” Barry said. “He’s not been complaining or anything.”

    Coping in prison

    Joel Brodsky, one of the six attorneys defending Peterson against the murder charges, also said his client was quietly coping with his confinement.

    “Drew’s got no complaints,” Brodsky said Thursday. “He’s fairly content; he wishes he was home with his family, of course.”

    Peterson has his own toilet and shower, amenities Brodsky called “a luxury in jail.” And while Peterson, whom Brodsky called “a very social person,” is having a hard time in protective custody, his attorney understands why the jail administration wants him away from the general population.

    “Jails house crazy people, so you never know,” said Brodsky, who pointed out that Peterson’s quasi-celebrity status might make him a target to other inmates. On top of that, as a former Bolingbrook cop, Peterson might not be the most popular man in the county jail, Brodsky said.

    “There’s some people out there who would consider it a notch on their belt, so to speak, to hit Drew,” he said.

    Though he is being held alone, Peterson can still have visitors, and was treated to the company of his former fiancee, Christina Raines, as well as that of another young woman in the early days of his incarceration, a source said. And more recently, five of Peterson’s six lawyers, including Brodsky, dropped by Saturday to discuss legal strategy.

    Trial date

    Whether he has complaints about the county jail or not, Peterson has at least another month and a week to go in there before he gets in front of a jury, and possibly longer if either prosecutors or his own team of attorneys request and are granted a delay.

    And both sides are still waiting for Judge Stephen White to rule on whether any of about a dozen hearsay statements will be allowed as evidence during Peterson’s trial.

    For their part, Joseph “Shark” Lopez, another of Peterson’s lawyers, said he and his colleagues on the Drew Crew are primed to go.

    “We’ll be ready to rock and roll on this case,” Lopez said.

    Brodsky and Lopez declined to comment on the pending hearsay decision. So did Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office.

    Pelkie did say that his office has received no official communications from the defense attorneys regarding postponing Peterson’s date with justice and that prosecutors are gearing up as if everything is going according to schedule, saying, “We’re moving forward with preparations for a June 14 trial.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2243952,Peterson-arrest-anniversary-JO050610.article

  11. “We’ll be ready to rock and roll on this case,” Lopez said.

    Yeah! Rock and roll! A mom died tragically…so we’re gonna…rock this muthuh.

    Class act, that Lopez.

  12. O, it is a good thing that the trial is nearing and the defense is as ready as it claims to be. It’s time for the circus to morph into a murder trial.

    I find the flippant and arrogant remarks appalling, and I can’t imagine that any jury member would find that kind of attitude humorous.

    What is peculiar and funny, though, is that Mr. Lopez and Mr. Greenberg have been reported as being famous lawyers with high profile clients, yet, their well-known clients aren’t basking in the light of freedom. So, I guess Peterson, added to their list of celebrity clients, is more for name and fame, rather than what the final verdict may be. What is supposed to be so compelling about hiring attorneys that have clients locked away forever, i.e., Dugan and Calabrese? Yeah, famous lawyers and well-known clients, but guilty verdicts.

    Okay, then. Whatever floats Peterson’s boat.

  13. TO ALL OF THE FAMILIES, FRIENDS, SEARCHERS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE VICTIMS, KATHLEEN AND STACY, WHO HAVE STOOD TOGETHER AND WILL CONTINUE TO STAND TOGETHER:

    Quarrelsome Children (An Aesop’s Fable) There once was a man who had quarrelsome children. Even on his dying day they bickered. “My last wish,” he said, “is for you to bring me a bundle of sticks.” When this was done, he gave each child one and said, “Take your solitary twig in hand and break it.” Crack! Crack! went the dry, old wood as each child broke a solitary twig. “Now,” he said, “bind them together. Tie them, and you’ll see how much stronger your brittle twig can be.” The old man passed away. His children never forgot that day. Though they each lived separate, distant lives, Each sister, Each brother, In times of trouble they bonded together like a bundle of sticks, Giving strength to one another.

  14. Peterson asserts his finances are sound
    May 7, 2010 10:30 AM

    Drew Peterson has no debt except to pay the monthly gas and electric bills like everyone else. He still has the same home and furnishings inside, the same motorcycle and SUV before he was jailed.

    “He hasn’t been shopping since May 7 of 2009,” the day Peterson was arrested, his attorney, Walter Maksym said.

    Maksym filed an amended complaint Thursday in federal court, beefing up his argument to prevent the court from dismissing Peterson’s lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase for freezing a $220,000 line of homeowner’s credit he was using to pay for legal and other expenses.

    Today was the deadline to file the amended complaint or the lawsuit would be dismissed. Chase has until Monday to respond to the amended complaint.

    Peterson’s original lawsuit filed last fall alleges Chase — shortly after Peterson was arrested in May on charges he drowned his third wife, Kathleen Savio — illegally shut down the home equity line Peterson and fourth wife Stacy took out on their Bolingbrook home in 2005.

    The bank sent Peterson a letter dated May 15, 2009, saying the account was being frozen due to Peterson’s “imprisonment.” Affidavits filed by Chase executives in response to subpoenas filed by Peterson’s criminal defense attorney said it was a “pure banking decision” and that Peterson would be “unable to pay his account if we allowed it to be substantially drawn down.”

    Peterson argued that his income has improved since taking out the original line of credit. The former Bolingbrook police sergeant now makes $108,909 a year — including $2,758 in monthly Social Security benefits and his $6,000-a-month police pension — up from the $74,000 he made when he opened the credit line.

    Peterson is the sole suspect in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, but he has not been charged. His trial on murder charges in connection with Savio’s death begins on June 14.

    –Kristen Schorsch

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/peterson-asserts-his-finances-are-sound.html

  15. “He hasn’t been shopping since May 7 of 2009,” the day Peterson was arrested, his attorney, Walter Maksym said.

    So…he’s not supporting his four minor children?

  16. Well, this is just Maksym spewing to get the story upfront again, but I am confused as to how he does his math.

    Peterson argued that his income has improved since taking out the original line of credit. The former Bolingbrook police sergeant now makes $108,909 a year — including $2,758 in monthly Social Security benefits and his $6,000-a-month police pension — up from the $74,000 he made when he opened the credit line.

    I’m confused. When he opened the line of credit, why wasn’t the $2700+/month in SS benefits included at that time, but it is now? Where were the SS benefits going prior to them being included in the lawsuit of Peterson vs. Chase? In other words, he’s making slightly less in income now, since I don’t believe he receives 100% of what his salary was at retirement in pension money; usually it’s at a range of 75-80%.

    “Everyone is entitled to use their property in order to maintain a defense against the might of the State, that we are taxed to sustain. Mr. Peterson should be able to use HIS OWN MONEY so that already overburdened and struggling taxpayers do not have to also pay for the enormous defense costs,” says Maksym. “We will hold Chase, the bank that is sitting on billions of our hard earned ‘bailout’ tax money, for refusing to honor and reneging on their commitment for the benefit of us all.
    “I decided to take this highly controversial case because of the critical issues involved that are of public importance and to stop Chase from getting away with unconscionable conduct.”

    Thank you Mr. Maksym, for thinking of us overburdened taxpayers. Can you get our county, state and real estates taxes reduced for us too? Cuz, I don’t give a rat’s ass what you do for Drew Peterson.

  17. Rescue, when he opened that line of credit, he did it jointly with Stacy in 2005. He wasn’t retired yet, so there would have been no SSI.

  18. Writerofwrongs posted this once:
    “The social security death benefits are for the 2 minor children and based upon Kathleen Savio’s contributions while she was alive and employed.”

  19. Is his police pension actually bigger than his salary was?

    I don’t think Chase or any bank would be required to give you a loan based on the equity in your home. If you want to use it to pay for your legal fees sell the house.

  20. charmed4sr :

    Rescue, when he opened that line of credit, he did it jointly with Stacy in 2005. He wasn’t retired yet, so there would have been no SSI.

    Charmed – I wasn’t looking at it from a retirement standpoint. I was looking at the SS benefits as those that the children were entitled to after their mother’s death, which, I assume, began soon after she died.

    Certainly, he’s not getting SS benefits because he’s too young. The age he could begin would be 62. Also, it’s possible he would only get a small portion of SS when he attains SS retirement age because he was a municipal worker, and the Government doesn’t allow them to collect full SS together with their pension. Possibly $400 a month would be the most he’d receive. He wasn’t married to Kathleen when she died, so the children would be the only ones that would be entitled to her SS. Still, Maksym is using the amount of SS he collects as part of his “income,” so if it is income now, it must have been income then, when he applied for the line of credit.

  21. Thanks, Rescue.
    FYI – if anyone needs a refresher.

    His pension of $72k annually is less than his salary was.
    Peterson had a $220,000 line of credit in May 2005.

    The suit claims in May 2005, Peterson received a home equity credit line from Chase for $220,000. The credit line — which the former Bolingbrook cop now wants to use to post part of his bond, pay his attorneys and hire expert witnesses — was suspended by the bank in May 2009.

    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/remembering-stacy-ann-peterson/#comment-54354

    There’s a lot of info in the actual complaint:

    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/documents/#oo

  22. The Home Equity Line of Credit with Chase was taken out in 2005. The social security amount must be for the children so it seems odd that shouldn’t really be any different from when Kathleen died in 2004 to now. Police pensions are usually pretty good and based on any salary increases from mid-2005 to the late-2007 could have helped boost up his pension salary to nearly what he was earning in 2005. So his earnings weren’t really affected. I could see them saying he may have used up his equity to get bailed out and then ran up more bills for his defense team which could result in him filing bankruptcy altogether.

    I still wonder if Drew can lose his pension if he is found guilty of Kathleen’s murder since he went to the house while in uniform which would then be vied as an effort to conceal a crime. Thus his imprisonment and potential charges against him could result in him losing a substantial component of his income and make him unable to pay his HELOC. (Probably a stretch but it was just making me wonder…)

    http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/9-3.4.html

    (720 ILCS 5/9-3.4) (was 720 ILCS 5/9-3.1)

    Sec. 9-3.4. Concealment of homicidal death.

    (a) A person commits the offense of concealment of homicidal death when he or she knowingly conceals the death of any other person with knowledge that such other person has died by homicidal means.

    (b) Nothing in this Section prevents the defendant from also being charged with and tried for the first degree murder, second degree murder, or involuntary manslaughter of the person whose death is concealed.

    (b-5) For purposes of this Section:

    “Conceal” means the performing of some act or acts for the purpose of preventing or delaying the discovery of a death by homicidal means. “Conceal” means something more than simply withholding knowledge or failing to disclose information.

    “Homicidal means” means any act or acts, lawful or unlawful, of a person that cause the death of another person.

    (c) Sentence. Concealment of homicidal death is a Class 3 felony.

  23. Oops – my comment above should say while on duty and in uniform (rather than just in uniform).

  24. UPDATE

    Peterson asserts his finances are sound
    May 7, 2010 1:28 PM

    Drew Peterson needs an estimated $45,000 to hire expert witnesses, including a biomechanical engineer, to help defend against first-degree murder charges as he goes to trial in June, according to documents his federal attorney filed late Thursday.

    The former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s finances have come under scrutiny after he filed a federal lawsuit last fall against JPMorgan Chase for freezing a $220,000 line of credit on his home shortly after his arrest on murder charges last May.

    A federal judge on April 29 dismissed the complaint, ruling that Peterson’s financial circumstances were altered when he was arrested on murder charges and ordered held on $20 million bond. Peterson’s attorneys were allowed to file an amended complaint by Thursday.

    His attorney, Walter Maksym, says Peterson now has no debts except his utility bills and has kept his home, furnishings, motorcycle and SUV.

    All of Peterson’s attorney fees and other legal expenses since 2009 have been paid, he said. The expense figures were provided to Chase under seal.

    “He hasn’t been shopping since May 7 of 2009,” the day Peterson was arrested, Maksym said.

    Peterson is charged with the 2004 drowning death of third wife Kathleen Savio and remains the chief suspect in the death of fourth wife Stacey Peterson.

    He needs more cash to pay for a biomechanical engineering expert to testify about the positing of Savio’s body in the bathtub of her Bolingbrook home, according to the court filing.

    Peterson also needs money to pay a pathologist, toxicologist and coroner as well as a “data and document organization specialist” to help keep the massive amounts of paperwork organized.

    Affidavits filed by Chase executives in response to subpoenas filed by Peterson’s criminal defense attorney said it was a “pure banking decision” and that Peterson would be “unable to pay his account if we allowed it to be substantially drawn down.”

    Peterson argued that his income has improved since taking out the original line of credit. The former Bolingbrook police sergeant now makes $108,909 a year — including $2,758 in monthly Social Security benefits and his $6,000-a-month police pension — up from the $74,000 he made when he opened the credit line.

    But Judge Ronald Guzman was unimpressed with those arguments, ruling that the law says it is Peterson’s “financial condition” that matters, not strictly his income.

    –Steve Schmadeke and Kristen Schorsch

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/peterson-asserts-his-finances-are-sound.html

  25. Oh – and it probably won’t help Drew that he transferred all of the money from the HELOC to his son temporarily when Stacy first disappeared as that could give any lender a reason to worry when the whole balance is run up in a day.

  26. But Judge Ronald Guzman was unimpressed with those arguments…

    There’s another Judge that seems to be unimpressed with the defense’s arguments, ha, ha.

    A “biomechanical engineer?” Would a plumber work? There’s a few that could use some money, what with the economy being the way it is.

  27. The suit claims in May 2005, Peterson received a home equity credit line from Chase for $220,000. The credit line — which the former Bolingbrook cop now wants to use to post part of his bond, pay his attorneys and hire expert witnesses — was suspended by the bank in May 2009.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Yes according to the lawsuit Drew is so disadvantaged by Chase not giving him access to “his” money, that he can’t defend himself, can’t pay his attorneys, can’t hire any experts etc, can’t post any of his bond etc.

    I suppose that claim by Maksym is going to be amended now that Drew has managed to hire another 4 lawyers, engaged several expert witnesses, had an expert witness on the stand etc, so he’s shown he’s not so desperate for Chases money at all (!!)

  28. but then again, you have to pay big bucks to get them to say this is how someone falls in the bathtub, then jumps up and cleans everything up, then goes back to drowning….but they have to hurry as the water is leaving.

  29. I’m sorry (who am I apologizing to, LOL), but I can’t help but laugh. I know Peterson has to do everything humanly possibly to defend his sorry ass, but a biomechanical engineer to justify and testify to the absurd explanation of how the positioning of Kathleen’s body constitutes an accidental, contorted fall? Or, is he going to explain how the water that was became the water that wasn’t?

    data and document organization specialist

    That sure is a big name for a paper pusher.

  30. from above–
    His attorney, Walter Maksym, says Peterson now has no debts except his utility bills and has kept his home, furnishings, motorcycle and SUV.

    All of Peterson’s attorney fees and other legal expenses since 2009 have been paid, he said. The expense figures were provided to Chase under seal.

    ***********************************************************************************
    hmmm, no mention of the Ultra light?? Is it gone? No mention of Stacy’s car. Did he give that Raines? I would assume he cannot sell the house as it is in Stacy’s name as well and she has not yet been declared dead nor has a divorce been granted giving him sole ownership, unless I missed something.

    His attorney fees are paid, in chicken wing perhaps, at least through 2009, but heck a lot has taken place in 2010. Of course if you don’t pay for those who don’t think the way you want them to, so that saves a buck or 2.

  31. JAH – Very interesting thought. On one hand – Drew has enough money to pay off a $200K loan yet heet doesn’t have the money to pay a $45K expert. Won’t some of the experts let Drew pay on a payment plan? Doesn’t he have any credit cards he could use? Couldn’t he sell his car or his plane to get the funds? I don’t think he will be found indigent no matter how hard he tries to get access to taxpayer funding.

  32. All of Peterson’s attorney fees and other legal expenses since 2009 have been paid, he said. The expense figures were provided to Chase under seal.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    So in an initial 38 page law suit Maksym is whining it is Chases fault Drew can’t defend himself as Chase is “criminally and fraudulently” witholding Drews line of Credit and in the next breath Maksym submits paperwork all Drews attorney fees and other legal expenses since 2009 have been paid (!!)

  33. Who pays his real estate taxes? Where does the money come from to pay his monthly insurance premiums, and that of the two children who are not Kathleen’s?

    Who pays the premiums for the homeowner’s insurance, the automobile insurance, especially for a 16 year old (EXPENSIVE!!!!), the comprehensive insurance on the motorcycle? The food for the children and his adult son, who I understand is living there?

    But, when all is said and done, he has a civil suit (wrongful death) against him, an illegal weapon case to deal with, a reopened probate case to worry about, and last, but not least, can we assume that Stacy’s disappearance/death is hanging over his head?

    Yeah, right. Pay this.

  34. Oh, and don’t forget – his woman child girlfriend has attained the services of Gloria Allred, and we know she’s always after some dude’s money for her wronged women clients. Especially the ones that romp in the hay with someone else’s husband.

  35. Don’t forget clothing expense….I’m sure they all need new clothes every few months; seasons change, kids grow.

  36. Oh yes and the Defense desperately needs a bio-mechanical engineer to show Kathleen slipped on the soap.

    Didn’t the “Shark” already state what an open and shut case this is ” it’s simple the lady had an accident” ??

  37. It DOESN’T matter what his expenses are. Judge Guzman “wasn’t impressed.” It’s going to be his ability to pay the loan back, in full. His “financial condition” is a mess right now with all of the legal matters that are flying in his face. That is what the judge is looking at, so Mr. Maksym’s argument doesn’t even make sense to us, let alone to the Judge.

    We can conjure up additional monthly household/family expenses til the cows come home — it’s his future ability to pay the money back for all the legal representation he’s going to need for his other legal problems. :-)

  38. So in cross-examination, the States Attorney can say “and just how much are they paying for your expertise?”

  39. Today’s filing is more interesting for its content as to how the defense is going to defend a ridiculous accident claim. If they need a biomechanical engineer to explain what his forensic expert called a “simple” slip and fall, what does that tell you? What is so complicated about explaining how someone supposedly slipped on a bath tub surface? Oh, yeah, it’s the way she fell that they need to explain.

    You know, how she happened to get at least one deep, traumatic bruise on her abdomen that matches a type of hold Peterson was trained to use on suspects.

    Hell, you don’t need a biomechanical engineer to explain that Peterson himself touched his dead ex-wife’s body after he sent in half of Bolingbrook to find her dead in the tub.

  40. A man sitting in prison with a 20 million dollar bond on his head, having been charged with murdering his ex wife + facing law suits left, right and center, chalking up legal bills in the millions while he’s at it is not a good credit risk in anyones books (!!)

  41. there is also mention of pathologist, toxicologist and coroner, as well as a “data and document organization specialist.” With the recent news that they didn’t pay the medical examiner, do you think they will have trouble retaining others?

  42. Hell, you don’t need a biomechanical engineer to explain that Peterson himself touched his dead ex-wife’s body after he sent in half of Bolingbrook to find her dead in the tub.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Too right, no biomechanical engineer can undo Drews bizarre/illegal/unauthorized and totally against the most basic Police protocol’s actions the night Kathleens was found dead in her bath tub !

  43. I’ll put this on here so you guys can read the Judge’s Order from 4/29/2010

    DREW W. PETERSON, Plaintiff,
    v.
    JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant.
    No. 09 C 6746.

    United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
    April 29, 2010.

    MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

    RONALD A. GUZMAN, District Judge.

    Plaintiff has sued defendant for its alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act and state law. The case is before the Court on defendant’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

    Facts

    On May 18, 2005, the parties entered into a contract for a twenty-year home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) in the amount of $220,000.00. (Compl. ¶ 10.) On May 7, 2009, plaintiff was arrested on murder charges and has been held in a state detention facility ever since. (Id. ¶ 11.) After his arrest, plaintiff drew on the HELOC to pay his expenses. (Id. ¶ 12.) On May 15, 2009, defendant suspended the HELOC “because of a material change in [plaintiff’s] financial condition,” namely “[i]mprisonment,” prompting this suit. (See id.)

    Discussion

    On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 580 (7th Cir. 2009). “[A] complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations” but must contain “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

    In Counts I and II, plaintiff alleges that defendant suspended his HELOC in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). With certain exceptions, that statute bars creditors from unilaterally changing the terms of HELOC agreements. 15 U.S.C. § 1647(c). One exception allows a creditor to “[p]rohibit additional extensions of credit or reduce the credit limit applicable to [a HELOC] during any period in which the creditor has reason to believe that the consumer will be unable to comply with the repayment requirements . . . due to a material change in the consumer’s financial circumstances.” 15 U.S.C. § 1647(c)(2)(C); see 12 C.F.R. § 226.5b(f)(3)(vi)(B) (same). Defendant says it suspended the HELOC because it believes plaintiff’s arrest and detention for first degree murder will impair his ability to make HELOC payments. (See Compl., Ex. C, Letter to Drew & Stacy Peterson from Chase dated 5/19/09.) Plaintiff says that justification is baseless because he has alleged that his income, which is comprised of pension and social security benefits, is not affected by his incarceration. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-18.)

    The assumption underlying plaintiff’s argument is that “financial circumstances,” for the purposes of TILA section 1647(c)(2)(C), means “income.” That language does not appear in the statute, however, and the staff interpretation of Regulation Z indicates that “financial circumstances” encompasses more than income. Id.; 12 C.F.R. § 226.5b(f)(3)(vi)(B); see 12 C.F.R. § 226, Supp. I (saying that decreased income is an example, not the universe, of changed financial circumstances).

    Nonetheless, plaintiff contends that two district courts have agreed with his interpretation and urges the Court to follow their lead. In the first case, Schulken v. Washington Mutual Bank, the financial circumstance defendants cited for suspending plaintiffs’ HELOC was that their income had dropped. No. C-09-02708 JW, 2009 WL 4173525, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2009). Because the alleged income change was the only reason defendants gave for the suspension in that case, the parties used “financial circumstances” and “income” interchangeably. Id. However, the Schulken court did not hold that the terms are interchangeable. In fact, the court dismissed the TILA claim on other grounds without even addressing the issue. Id. at *4. Given its unique facts and inapposite holding, Schulken does not support plaintiff’s argument.

    Nor does Levin v. Citibank N.A., No. C-09-0350 MMC, 2009 WL 3008378 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2009), the other case plaintiff cites. The issue in Levin was whether defendant had properly invoked the TILA exception in section 1647(c)(2)(B), which permits a creditor to suspend a HELOC if the value of the property securing it decreases significantly, not the exception in 1647(c)(2)(C) for changed financial circumstances. Id. at *1-2. Because the meaning of financial circumstances was not even presented to, let alone ruled on, by the Levin court, the case has no application here.

    Plaintiff does not offer any other authority for his crabbed interpretation of “financial circumstances,” and the Court has found none. Moreover, Seventh Circuit decisions in other contexts demonstrate that financial condition depends on both income and expenses. See Rivera v. City of Chi., 469 F.3d 631, 635 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that a losing party can be excused from paying costs under Rule 54(d) only if evidence about his “income/assets and expenses” shows that he is “incapable of paying the court-imposed costs at this time or in the future” (quotation omitted)); Goulet v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 284 F.3d 773, 777 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating that a student loan will be discharged in bankruptcy only if the debtor shows that “he cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a minimal standard of living for himself and his dependents if forced to repay the loan[]”). Given TILA’s plain language, the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in analogous cases and the utter lack of support for plaintiff’s view, the Court holds that “financial circumstances,” as it is used in TILA section 1647(c)(2)(C), does not refer solely to “income.”

    Plaintiff’s TILA suspension claim does not pass muster under the Court’s interpretation of the statute. Though plaintiff alleges that the murder charge does not affect his income, he does not say that his expenses are similarly unaffected. In fact, his allegations suggest the reverse. (See Compl. ¶ 39(a)-(m) (alleging that plaintiff needs multiple lawyers, experts and other professionals to defend against the charge).) Because plaintiff’s allegations do not state a plausible claim for relief on the TILA suspension claim, the Court dismisses it.

    In Count III of the complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated TILA by sending him a suspension notice that was “untimely and/or did not contain sufficiently specific . . . reasons” for the action. (Id. ¶ 45.) But, in his response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff does nothing to defend the timeliness claim and concedes that the specificity claim has no merit. (See Pl.’s Mem. Opp’n Mot. Dismiss at 11 (“In compliance with [sic] first Regulation Z disclosure requirement, the [suspension] notice letter identified the specific reasons for the suspension of the Petersons’ HELOC. . . .”).) Given plaintiff’s abandonment of these claims, the Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss them and the state claims based on the same alleged deficiencies asserted in Counts V and VI. (See Compl. ¶¶ 58, 67.)[1]

    In Counts IV and V, plaintiff alleges that defendant breached the terms of the parties’ contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by baselessly suspending the HELOC. (Id. ¶¶ 52, 57.) In Count VII, he alleges that defendant’s suspension notice is fraudulent because it falsely states that plaintiff’s incarceration is a material change to his financial condition. (Id. ¶¶ 70-74.) In Count XI, plaintiff alleges that defendant defamed him by making the baseless HELOC suspension “part of his credit information.” (Id. ¶ 100.) In Count XII, he alleges that defendant’s baseless suspension of the HELOC intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him. (Id. ¶ 102.) Though these claims are based on different legal theories, they all have the same factual premise — that the murder charge does not affect plaintiff’s financial condition. Because, as discussed above, plaintiff has not adequately alleged this fact, the Court dismisses these claims.

    In Count VI, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act because its statements about “the availability of credit through the HELOC” and “potential bases for reducing credit limits” were false. (Id. ¶ 65.) If this claim shares the factual premise of the claims discussed above, it fails for the same reason. If this claim has some other factual basis, it fails for lack of specificity under Rule 9(b). See id.; Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., Inc., 536 F.3d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2008).

    The two remaining counts, IX and X, seek specific remedies for the defunct state-law claims. Accordingly, they are also dismissed.

    Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss [doc. no. 27] and dismisses plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff may amend his complaint in accordance with this Order on or before May 6, 2010. If he fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this suit with prejudice. Defendant may file a response to any amended complaint on or before May 10, 2010. The Court strikes the summary judgment briefing schedule set forth in the April 7, 2010 order [doc. no. 72]. Summary judgment motions, if any, must be filed by June 1, 2010. If only one party moves for summary judgment, response is due June 15, 2010 and reply is due June 29, 2010. Cross-motions will be briefed as set forth in the Court’s standing order. Ruling on any summary judgment motions will be by mail.

    SO ORDERED.

    [1] Because plaintiff also abandons the Count VIII unjust enrichment claim, the Court dismisses it as well. (See Pl.’s Mem. Opp’n Mot. Dismiss at 14.)

  44. His attorney, Walter Maksym, says Peterson now has no debts except his utility bills and has kept his home, furnishings, motorcycle and SUV.

    All of Peterson’s attorney fees and other legal expenses since 2009 have been paid, he said. The expense figures were provided to Chase under seal.

    “He hasn’t been shopping since May 7 of 2009,” the day Peterson was arrested, Maksym said.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Looks like Maksym is now proving to Chase and the Courts, Drew doesn’t need Chases money after all as Drew can pay and has paid all his bills without the use of the Home Equity Line – LOL !!

    Is Maksym deliberately undermining his own case ????

  45. I am pretty sure the judge said “neaner, neaner, poopy on you” and blew a big fat raspberry at them.

  46. Great find, Rescue!

    Plaintiff does not offer any other authority for his crabbed interpretation of “financial circumstances,” and the Court has found none.

    Crabbed. Heh.

  47. So the whole case was dismissed as of April 29 and Drew was given a chance to make an amended complaint which is what was filed yesterday.

    Somehow, based on the ruling above and what we’ve read today about the amended complaint, I don’t think it’s going to fly this time either.

  48. Great job guys. You guys should start a radio station seriously. I think its rather inexpensive to do it. See like you can do it for free. So it would take some work lol. Just run it across you guys. You probably find it hard to happen with the amount of free work you gotta do lol. I appreciate you and Rescue being here Facs. I may not be a hen, but I’m a Rooster lol.

  49. Peterson argued that his income has improved since taking out the original line of credit. The former Bolingbrook police sergeant now makes $108,909 a year — including $2,758 in monthly Social Security benefits and his $6,000-a-month police pension — up from the $74,000 he made when he opened the credit line.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Let’s just take these highly inflated figures of Drews yearly income to be correct.

    That still means if he were to have access to his line of Credit, that alone is the equivalent of two years of his entire yearly income and that is notwithstanding the incredible mountain of legal services Maksym initially tried to bamboozle the Judge with (!!)

    Drew needs to come up with $ 2.000.000.00 to start with to just get himself out of jail.

    That alone is already far exceeding the $ 200.000.00 of his equity loan and he still needs 10 times that amount just to get out (!!)

    Then there are the unavoidable Legal bills/ various pending law suits against him he has to deal with.

    According to Walter Maksym’s initial law suit against Chase (!!), Drew is in need of countless experts and Legal advisors in order to defend himself properly, so the equity in his home/equity loan is only a drop in a bucket in the scheme of things, whilst he is already $ 1.8 million short to even get himself out of jail !

    Does that make him a bad credit risk or does that make him a bad credit risk ??

  50. JAH – I don’t know what makes him a bad credit risk, but I would think that if he is convicted in the Kathleen Savio murder trial, he’d lose his pension. I think that because he would have committed that crime whilst an active police officer. Of course, in that case, the obvious implication is that his income would be drastically reduced. As to the SS, it is his sons’ money, not his. That money is for the benefit of them, not to help repay his equity line of credit loan.

    Is it any wonder they froze his line of credit when he was charged with murder? It’s not about what his income is, it’s about what it’s going to be after he draws that money out.

  51. Good point Rescue. I was going to mention the other SSI was probably his sons if there were some. Yet you gotta remember any SSI disbersment is controlled by the parent in most cases. Yea its sons money.

  52. The initial Home Equity line of credit was granted to him in 2005 when his salary was $ 74.000.00 annually – when he wasn’t incarcerated, didn’t have a 20 million dollar bond on his head, umpteen law suits to look forward to or the need for experts and Defense lawyers, so there’s been a slight change in his circumstances since that time – LOL !

  53. Re Drewpy’s pension: I belong to a service organization with 3 LE agencies combined for the education of our citizens. I have asked 2 lieutenants and one captain this same question, giving abbreviated background.
    Now granted, this is in Texas and not Illinois, but all 3 have said once he begins to receive his pension payments, nothing will stop them.
    As an aside, 2 of them were already familiar with this case, and said that that ruling is probably why he retired when he did-knowing ‘it’ was going to hit the fan, he needed to get out quickly while his pension would still be in effect.
    ***
    And LOL, I was going to ask how any ‘Roosters’ felt about being lumped in with the high-flying hens. Oh. Sorry. Airhens, was it?

  54. Mmmm, I don’t know, Cheryl about the pension issue. If he committed a felony while he was active, I believe his pension is in jeopardy if he’s convicted of Kathleen’s murder.

    He abruptly retired because Chief McGury was beginning proceedings to have Peterson investigated for violating internal rules. By Peterson retiring when he did, that ended that.

    But, I think it would be difficult to imagine that his police pension would continue after being convicted of a murder he would have committed while an active officer.

    Illinois law provides for government pensions to be forfeited when public officials are convicted of felonies tied to their official duties.

  55. Excerpt

    Drew Peterson granted full police pension
    Thursday, November 15, 2007

    By Sarah Schulte

    November 15, 2007 (WLS) — A police pension board met Thursday over whether Drew Peterson is entitled to his police pension. Peterson turned in his resignation as a Bolingbrook Police sergeant after he was named a suspect in the disappearance of his wife. Stacey Peterson has been missing for more than two weeks.

    Because drew Peterson is over the age of 50 and has given over 20 years of service to the Bolingbrook Police Department, the board said, by law, they did have to vote to grant him his full pension. One board member said, because of the circumstances, she wasn’t comfortable doing so, but the law is the law.

    Drew Peterson is a 39-year veteran of the Bolingbrook Police Department. His years of service entitle him to a $6,000-a-month pension. It is money he is fighting to keep.

    “The only thing that would operate to take away his pension, for Sergeant Peterson or any other police officer, is a felony conviction that is related to his employment. It has to be a job-related felony,” said Richard Reimer, attorney for Bolingbrook Police pension board.

    Even if Peterson is fired from the force, he still would be entitled to his pension, unless he is convicted of a job-related felony, which the Bolingbrook pension board would have to define.

    “If there was evidence, and there was a conviction that somehow he used or misused his police authority, that would be something the board would consider that could be considered a job-related felony that could cause him to lose his pension,” said Reimer.

    The 53-year-old is still only considered a suspect. Peterson has not been charged with anything to do with his wife Stacy’s disappearance or the death of his third wife Kathleen Savio. Despite that, Peterson appears to be gearing up for a costly legal defense. Peterson begged for a lawyer during Wednesday’s interview on NBC’s Today show.

    “I’m reaching out to the attorneys of America for help. If anybody would like to take my case and help me out here, please call,” Peterson said Wednesday.

    Peterson broke his silence one day after his third wife Kathleen Savio’s body was exhumed.

    Continued

  56. BTW, by Peterson taking retirement just short of 30 years, he ended up getting about $200 a month less in pension than he would have gotten had he not been frightened by the threat of being fired for misconduct, and run. Originally he was to be granted the full amount until the pension fund people realized he had not actually worked for 30 years.

    “There may have been a misrepresentation on that. As far as who made the misrepresentation, I’m not going to comment on at this point in time. All I will tell you is, the reason that the pension is now going to be reduced is because Sergeant Peterson did not have the full 30 years of credible service we were led to believe he had.”

    Drew made statements about the amount not being a big deal, but it was a big enough deal for him to complain to the media about it.

    http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/1295074.php?

  57. IMO, since he has started already collecting the pension a felony may not mean that he loses it retroactively. Cheryl, your friend could very well be right about how hard it is to take it away once it’s been granted. In truth, if he were to be convicted and end up serving life in prison I’d almost rather he continues to receive the pension since then we’d know it will be his kids benefitting from it.

    I don’t really know how this works in most cases where people who are receiving pensions are convicted of a felony. Is it different for cops?

  58. Exaw wants to talk about stalking. STALKING? I got stalking for you. She could write the book!

    exlawenforcement // April 20, 2008 at 11:58 am

    Well guys once again I am proven wrong. I still cannot believe it, not so much the dating but lying on Larry King. I am crestfallen. John can you give us any other info ? How long has she been divorced or do you know her middle name? Theres a listed in lemont, but it shows her as being married. Any info you can give will help. Theres a number of ways to make it public.

    exlawenforcement // April 20, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    Was she married to phillip ? Whats her brothers name? Were they out again today ? Do you know what she does for a living?

    “exlawenforcement // April 21, 2008 at 8:45 pm
    I was on the internet last night trying to figure out where she lived in the area. I found a name and address that matched in Lemont. I wanted to make sure I was right. This lady is in danger. There has got to be a way to alert people around her and help in that effort. John already said that she was not smart when it came to men. If Drew is lying about them dating on national tv what else is going on? After being in law enforcement you do ask alot of questions, its just my nature. If you do not ask you never get the info you need. I just worry that since john does not want to reveal who he is if he will go to ISP ? He has to be careful and I am thinking of anything I can do to help with anything I have raed on here. I even e mailed Stacys family. I am serious about this.

    exlawenforcement // April 21, 2008 at 4:08 am

    To John: That cell that you have is it hers ? I am willing to give you my e mail if you do not want it out in public. Any other info would be helpful.

    exlawenforcement // April 21, 2008 at 9:04 pm
    John: I am at w.patterson88@yahoo.com, sorry I forgot the 88. its been a long day for me. I have e mailed Danya hooker on this site,steve dahl at 104.3, kristy Mergenthal, the newsroom and regular news line. Another friend with Pd posted on Fox news blogs. I will do so later. I also used the email to contact Stacys family too. I will let you know what else I have come up with tomorrow…”

  59. I think KP McP (Exlaw) is a non entity in all this, other then to make us shake our heads, and then watch her spit nails. She injected herself personally, and it is certainly sad. She really has some major issues, and I love the fact she reads this board, and LostAcres will become Lost, as in Lost without a brain..LOL. But then, LostAcres never had one, according to her. It’s gotta be driving her bloody batty. My apologies, but she has been getting on my nerves since Day 1

  60. Shake our heads is right, LA and WB. When I see reminders like Widebirth posted above of how someone can invest themselves so personally in a case like this only to swerve wildly from one side to another, it reminds me of those people who idolize a celebrity and then end up trying to hurt them. I hope that the people are closest to Drew and his team are aware of what IMO appears to be a high level of instability. I believe Drew Peterson is guilty as sin and I don’t think much of Joel Brodsky, but I want to see justice for Stacy and Kathy happen in the courtroom. I would hate to see some kind of nutsy stalker tragedy happen. I’ve said it before — I dearly hope they have metal detectors at all the doors at the courthouse.

  61. I think Exlaw is way too timid to become a real issue. She has always struck me as one of those women that LOVES to be dragged by her hair back into the cave

  62. May 8, 2010 at 11:04 am | #67
    Quote

    BTW, by Peterson taking retirement just short of 30 years, he ended up getting about $200 a month less in pension than he would have gotten had he not been frightened by the threat of being fired for misconduct, and run. Originally he was to be granted the full amount until the pension fund people realized he had not actually worked for 30 years.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I suppose $ 200.00 a month less pension money in his pocket would have been a small price to pay over the alternative of being sacked by Chief McGury and maybe not get any pension at all due to his misconduct and various breaches of Policies and Procedures !

  63. I don’t understand the argument of the Peterson team in this Chase lawsuit. Maksym lists the reasons for Peterson wanting the money, which, speaking from a “layperson’s” point of view, has nothing to do with the reason for filing the lawsuit in the first place. It was filed, I thought, as a complaint against Chase for illegally or improperly, whatever term you want to call it, cutting off the HELOC. Whether he wants the money to use for his defense, or wants the money to send a favorite girlfriend on a luxury cruise, has nothing to do with the basis of the lawsuit. Did Chase act properly or not? Hiring a biomechanical engineer, or some dude to organize the massive amount of discovery paperwork, etc., has no bearing on Chase’s actions.

    What the hell is this legal team thinking? OMG, I can’t believe this train wreck. And, unless I’m mistaken, Judge Guzman basically told them they’re full of baloney, and unless they can find a legitimate reason to amend this lawsuit, they should go the hell away and stay out of his courtroom.

  64. Also, why include the SS benefits now as part of “new” income, when it’s not Peterson’s income to use as a basis to pay back a loan? Those SS payments are for the benefit of his two sons. If he gets convicted, that money is going to continue to be paid to his sons, if I’m not mistaken. So, by even discussing it in the Motions, isn’t that admitting Peterson considers those benefits his in which to pay off his own debts? Geesh. I’m really amazed at their logic.

  65. Isn’t the whole argument sort of weird and circular anyway? He’s trying to show that he has money to get money, and at the same time that he really needs money so has to borrow money. Meanwhile, he’s showing money that isn’t his (The SS for his kids) and a pension that is in jeopardy as collateral for a loan. No wonder the judge dismissed it so roundly. That order is almost painful to read.

  66. BTW, the SS money for the benefit of his sons will stop when they reach the age of 18, or 19 if still in high school. Once done with high school, they will no longer receive SS benefits.

    If Peterson is going to use his sons’ SS benefit money, that doesn’t leave much time in which to pay back in excess of $200,000 in loans.

  67. You’re right, Facs, that is almost painful to read. It’s quite pathetic. You are sure hitting the nail on the head by saying it’s circular.

    A “simple slip and fall” can’t possibly need a biomechanical engineer to explain the positioning of Kathleen’s body, can it? I wonder how many biomechanical engineers get called into murder trials when the deceased individual is found dead, drowned, and full of bruises in a dry bath tub? Not many, I would think. Must be why it is going to be quite expensive to get one. It’s going to take a real heavy hitter to explain that, in a convoluted, complicated way, no less.

  68. Attorney/Orgasm specialist Maksym shot himself in the foot nicely with his whining to the Courts about Drews dire need for the HELOC-money in order to engage various experts/attorneys etc Drew was going to need for his Defense, as Judge Guzman quite rightly stated Drews financial woes are far greater than his income/equity in the house will ever be and Maksym quite nicely pointed that out to him in said lawsuit – LOL !

  69. Plaintiff’s TILA suspension claim does not pass muster under the Court’s interpretation of the statute. Though plaintiff alleges that the murder charge does not affect his income, he does not say that his expenses are similarly unaffected. In fact, his allegations suggest the reverse. (See Compl. ¶ 39(a)-(m) (alleging that plaintiff needs multiple lawyers, experts and other professionals to defend against the charge).) Because plaintiff’s allegations do not state a plausible claim for relief on the TILA suspension claim, the Court dismisses it.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    LOL !!

  70. “He hasn’t been shopping since May 7 of 2009,” the day Peterson was arrested, his attorney, Walter Maksym said.

    Unless you want to count the grocery list of lawyers. Oh-and judges, LOL!

  71. Just a thought. Is there any proof out there that the children are receiving SS ? I thought I read something that confirmed this. I need a refresh on this.

    Happy Mothers day to all the moms !

  72. On behalf of all moms everywhere, we appreciate all of the good wishes, the love and the support we’ve received on ‘our day’.
    I, too, was thinking of Kathy and Stacy’s children this morning. What a sad day for them. I wish we knew what kind of love and support they are receiving now. And counseling. God love ‘em.
    To all moms, I hope you all had a wonderful day!

  73. He needs more cash to pay for a biomechanical engineering expert to testify about the positing (sic) of Savio’s body in the bathtub of her Bolingbrook home, according to the court filing.

    Peterson also needs money to pay a pathologist, toxicologist and coroner as well as a “data and document organization specialist” to help keep the massive amounts of paperwork organized.

    Toxicologist – Why, I wonder? The original autopsy, on which the defense is supposedly relying, indicated there was no alcohol and/or drugs in Kathleen’s system. The only thing that might change this depends on the second autopsy:

    Savio’s body was exhumed Nov. 12 and an independent autopsy commissioned by the Will County coroner’s office was performed Nov. 13.
    At that time, O’Neil said, Blum requested a battery of toxicology tests be done using tissue samples taken from Savio’s body.

    The additional tests being done are more complicated than standard toxicology tests that use blood, urine, bile, and brain and liver tissue. Once the toxicology tests are received by the coroner’s office, they will be turned over the state’s attorney, O’Neil said.

    Is there something there that shouldn’t be?

  74. Blum said the position of Savio’s body in the tub — facedown with both feet pressed hard against the tub wall, her toes hyperextended — made it “highly, highly unlikely” she drowned accidentally.

    I assume this is what the biomechanical engineer is needed for. IDK. But, I’d sure like to know if the future testifying engineer maps out questionable bath tub drownings on a regular basis, does this as a side job, or rose to the occasion for just this particular case.

    The jury is in for a real treat, since, in biomechanics:

    Relevant mathematical tools include linear algebra, differential equations, vector and tensor calculus, numerics and computational techniques such as the finite element method.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomechanics

  75. A very good read about the Biomechanical engineer as an expert witness; how they work for the defense, how the work for the prosecution, and how you might get their testimony excluded:

    http://www.leesfield.com/CM/Speeches/Speeches29.asp

    EXCERPTS

    …This paper addresses how courts have dealt with just one kind of scientific expert witness: the biomechanical engineer. As biomechanical engineers testify more frequently in trials, and especially in tort cases, it is becoming increasingly important for the plaintiff’s attorney to know how to deal with these experts…

    …Biomechanical engineers have testified in personal injury cases involving: (a) automobile roll overs(3), (b) seat belt problems(4), (c) defective football helmets(5) (d) infant car seats(6), (e) temporomandibular (“TMJ”) disorders(7), and (f) bone screws(8). In each of these cases, the biomechanical engineers were called to explain the dynamics of the injury in question…

  76. Interesting:

    …A final consideration when dealing with an expert biomechanical engineer at trial is the scope of that expert’s opinion. The Sixth Circuit in Smelser noted that biomechanical engineers can improperly testify too specifically about the causes of a plaintiff’s injuries. The court in Smelser noted that the expert in that case himself “admitted that biomechanics are qualified to determine what injury causation forces are in general and can tell how a hypothetical person’s body will respond to those forces, but are not qualified to render medical opinions regarding the precise cause of a specific injury.”(21) Thus, the court concluded that biomechanical engineers can only testify in general terms “that ‘X’ forces would generally lead to ‘Y’ injuries and ‘Y’ injuries are consistent with those that the plaintiff claims to have suffered.”(22)…

  77. Yes, it’s going to be hard to find a biomechanical engineer who specializes in bathtub falls and can demonstrate his or her expertise in that area. The State should have a lot of fun with this very expensive expert witness.

  78. This guy’s local. Wonder if he’s their man?

    Louis F. Draganich

    Dr. Draganich has been retained by attorneys for impact matters resulting from motor vehicle accidents, amusement park accidents, construction accidents, criminal acts, diving accidents, elevator accidents, industrial accidents, maritime accidents, medical devices, playground accidents, railroad accidents, shaking baby, sports accidents, trampoline accidents and slips trips and falls. These accidents have included traumatic brain injuries, whiplash injuries, cord injuries, ruptured discs (herniated discs injuries), rotator cuff injuries, shoulder injuries, leg injuries, knee injuries, ankle injuries, foot injuries, and orthopedic implants failures.

    http://www.draganichconsulting.com/About_Draganich_Consulting.html

  79. Hey, good stuff, Facs.

    But, in all or most of these cases, the “accidents” were known to have occurred, i.e., mva, amusement park rides, elevator accidents, etc. How many questionable slips and falls in bath tubs might there be, that need to be biomechanically evaluated to prove accident rather than murder. I would imagine that any prior slips and falls don’t have anything to do with questionable murders. Maybe he can explain how a towel appeared in pictures later, but wasn’t there in the first place. Did it mechanically fall out of the linen closet, onto the side of tub?

    I’m glad this is all coming out. It shows how absolutely ridiculous and extreme the defense needs to go to make what is supposed to be a simple slip and fall a complicated, extreme mess.

  80. Wonder if the State is ready to “ring the bell”? Remember this oddity?

    Drew Peterson’s attorneys filed a mysteriously vague motion last week that has prosecutors scratching their heads.

    “We’re not certain what he’s getting at with that motion,” said Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office.

    Pelkie noted that prosecutors were still reviewing the motion of “objection to profer (sic) of expert witnesses” that Peterson’s attorneys Joel Brodsky and Andrew Abood filed Friday.

    The motion lists five questions the court must ask before admitting expert testimony, such as whether the testimony is relevant or if the witness is qualified to provide it, and “requests that this Court compel the People to ring the bell and answer in the People’s favor” with regard to the questions…

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/genevasun/news/1931156,4_1_JO10_PETERSON_S1-091210.article

  81. Yeah, Facs (#98), whatever did happen with that bizarre motion? Was that to mean the defense didn’t want any wrenches thrown in regarding who they offered up as expert witnesses, or did the defense mean that they wanted the State’s witnesses held to a standard that they requested of the Judge? Either way, it’s a confusing Motion, and where did it go?

  82. Abood Law Firm:
    Thinking about writing a book entitled “How to make the biggest mistake of your life.” It would be a “how to” book on people that have hired the wrong lawyer for whatever reason — and how in the end it became a much bigger mistake that the reason for the lawyer in the first place. What do you think?

  83. Hee, hee, now that’s heavy. How about adding some levity to the book:

    Need a new lawyer?

    Warning Signs that you Might Need a Different Lawyer

    1. Your lawyer tells you that his last good case was of Budweiser.
    2. When the prosecutors see your lawyer, they high-five each other.
    3. Your lawyer picks the jury by playing “duck-duck-goose.”
    4. Your lawyer tells you that he has never told a lie.
    5. A prison guard is shaving your head.

  84. For the record the amended complaint filed by the defense states:

    17. That in addition his pension, PETERSON has received,
    and is receiving for the benefit of his and his late wife’s two
    son’s and their living expenses monthly Social Security benefits
    of approximate $2,758.00 per month (the “Social Security
    Benefits”). By reason of the receipt of said social security
    benefits in the combined monthly sum of approximately $8,826.00,
    that may be used for their family residential, household and
    living expenses…

  85. Also, FYI:

    20. PETERSON has no outstanding debt since April of 2009,
    other than reoccurring modest living expenses for himself and
    his minor children for whom he is responsible, that have been
    disclosed to CHASE and are, approximately, personal, household
    expenses and monthly utilities, to wit: municipal water: $81.95,
    Comcast Cable $115.09; Sprint telephone: $210.19; Nicor Gas
    $140.42; ComEd electric: $145.84; housing: no mortgage (other
    than the CHASE zero balance HELCO), Will County real estate
    taxes for 2009: $6,132.32; medical care covered by pension
    retirement benefits, home and auto insurance, his children’s
    food provided by relatives or paid in substantially from his
    income or in part from social security benefits for his and his
    late wife’s two sons; childcare: none. On information and
    belief, from April 2009 to the present, litigation costs and
    fees, including, without limitation, if any expert fees, cost
    and expenses, i.e., attorneys fees and other legal services,
    other legal services (e.g., paralegals, support staff, etc.),
    fees and/or costs for investigators; fees and/or costs for
    witnesses; fees and/or costs for court reporters; clerk filing
    fees; service costs (e.g., costs for service of subpoenas); fees
    and/or costs for copy services; travel expenses, hotel
    accommodations, food expenses for attorneys and staff, and other
    costs, if any, have been confidentially disclosed to CHASE
    pursuant to protective order, have been paid and no other
    attorneys fees, costs or expenses are due and owing through the
    conclusion of the upcoming trial criminal case, His checking,
    savings, or investment accounts from March 2009 to the present
    have been he holds with CHASE from March 2009 to the present.

  86. Here are some highlights:

    MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

    1. In its April 29, 2010 Memorandum Opinion and Order, this Court dismissed Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson’s original complaint holding that Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim to relief because, “[t]hough plaintiff alleges that the murder charge does not affect his income, he does not say that his expenses are similarly unaffected.” (Docket No. 83, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 4.)

    2. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is virtually identical to the dismissed original complaint and attempts to assert claims under the Truth in Lending Act, as well as several other state law claims based on various theories.

    3. All of Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff does not state facts making those claims plausible and because his claims otherwise fail as a matter of law. In fact, the new allegations in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Paragraphs 13, 17-20) confirm that the murder charges against Plaintiff have caused a material change in Plaintiffs financial circumstances – Plaintiff admits he has incurred defense costs and will incur more costs in connection with the upcoming trial.

    4. In further support of its Motion to Dismiss, Chase submits the accompanymg Memorandum of Law, which is incorporated by reference. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, and each of its counts, should be dismissed with prejudice.

    WHEREFORE, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, and each of its counts, and for such further and different relief as this Court deems necessary and just.

    Date: May 10, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
    JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
    By: IslMichael G. Salemi
    One of its attorneys
    LeAnn Pedersen Pope (6186058)
    Victoria R. Collado (6204015)
    Michael G. Salemi (6279741)
    Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.e.
    330 North Wabash Avenue, 22nd Floor
    Chicago, Illinois 60611-3607

  87. The more I give this some thought, the more it seems like Peterson’s latest Chase Motion is probably full of baloney. In the portion that Facs posted, Maksym says all of the legal fees are paid up-to-date. There’s, what, 4 weeks or so before trial is to begin, and he’s just laying out a plan now that indicates they need a bio mechanic to testify, a pathologist and coroner, which I thought were one and the same, and a paper shuffler?

Comments are closed.