Drew Peterson back in court today on weapons charges


In classic Drew Peterson PR style, another letter from Drew was distributed to the media outlets coinciding with a court date. The letter was yet another invitation to a Pity Party for Drew Peterson, this time claiming that law enforcement and the media were targeting his children in order to harm Peterson.

Last month Drew’s son Stephen Peterson was suspended from his job as a police officer in Oak Brook, after testifying that he accepted the illegal weapon from his father shortly after Stacy Peterson went missing. He explained that the gun was among “his favorites, and he didn’t want anything to happen to them.”

After arriving late in court today, Drew Peterson’s attorneys attempted to argue constitutional issues as they relate to the charges that Peterson possessed an illegally modified firearm.  According to reporter Joe Hosey who was tweeting from the courthouse, at least one member of the team expressed he was “thoroughly confused” during proceedings. Judge Richard Schoenstedt set the date of October 1st for handing down his decision.

We’ll update as we learn more throughout the day. Make sure to check the comments thread for the latest news.

We’re following Joe Hosey as he tweets from the courthouse.

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email 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>

Advertisements

195 thoughts on “Drew Peterson back in court today on weapons charges

  1. Re:the letter, these are my idle thoughts:
    1)How non-coincidental that this is, once again, a female reporter.
    2)Was this picture posed for publication?
    3)Who passed the picture on to the newspaper, doing exactly what Drew ‘says’ he doesn’t want done?
    4)Good one, Cyrhla! How many of his children/stepchild did he escort to school for the first day? And like the poster said-how sad that her mother couldn’t be there. Can you imagine how proud Stacy would have been that milestone morning?

  2. Two things on the new article – I think that should be Oak Brook not Oak Park and I thought Drew was on paid administrative leave while they investigated him and that he hadn’t been handed down an official punishment (such as suspension or firing) yet.

  3. thinkaboutit2 :Two things on the new article – I think that should be Oak Brook not Oak Park and I thought Drew was on paid administrative leave while they investigated him and that he hadn’t been handed down an official punishment (such as suspension or firing) yet.

    I think you mean Steve.

  4. This is hysterical! No wonder Drew has been running his own defense!!!!!!!!!

    joehosey

    All the other cases were called. Drew’s the only one left. But Brodsky can’t do the case himself and they are waiting For more lawyers.
    2 minutes ago via txt

  5. IMHO Drew needs to keep writing those self-serving letters. Each one was apparently edited for public view, meaning that there must have been some pretty inappropriate material in there.

    More fodder for the Prosecution to use that shows Drew’s true temperament. (And it just shows what a fool he has for a lawyer. Instead of telling his client to keep his trap shut, Brodsky is the conduit for this garbage.)

  6. Yeah, Granny, maybe he manned-up and admitted he dumped on his son, but his lawyer wouldn’t let that part be included.

    Now, all he needs to do is say where Stacy is, and maybe this will begin to be the end.

  7. Granny – the full text of Drew’s letter is in the PDF (linked in the post above) if you want to see a version has not been edited.

    And yeah – I agree that while they are a major irritation to read, the self-serving whininess of Drew’s letters only hurts his case rather than help it.

  8. grandam :

    thinkaboutit2 :Two things on the new article – I think that should be Oak Brook not Oak Park and I thought Drew was on paid administrative leave while they investigated him and that he hadn’t been handed down an official punishment (such as suspension or firing) yet.

    I think you mean Steve.

    Doh! See – I mix up their names just like I mix up my kids names. Just call me Sheahan!

  9. As for Drew’s statement that his kids are being “terrorized” by law enforcement and the media, who is it that just handed the media a photo of his children, ensuring that everyone knows exactly what they look like? Jeebus, up until now the media had been blurring out the faces of his kids. Who does he think he’s fooling? There’s only one person using those kids IMO, and it’s Drew.

  10. rescueapet :
    Brodsky showed up in court at 10:30. WTH?

    I alwasys wondered. Do the lawyers get sent a different schedule for their actual cases? I know the jailed defendants often get processed at the same time to make it easier on the staff that handle them while awaiting their case. In Cook County the defendants all have to wait in a little holding pen and only get brought into the courtroom when their case is actually called. The lawyers all sit in the jury box on the cases I have seen in Cook County.

  11. thinkaboutit2 :

    grandam :

    thinkaboutit2 :Two things on the new article – I think that should be Oak Brook not Oak Park and I thought Drew was on paid administrative leave while they investigated him and that he hadn’t been handed down an official punishment (such as suspension or firing) yet.

    I think you mean Steve.

    Doh! See – I mix up their names just like I mix up my kids names. Just call me Sheahan!

    Come on, TAI. Paid administrative leave is the same as suspended with pay. He has been stripped of his police powers. He works in a p.d. that probably doesn’t have an insensitive position in which to place him in order for him to do work while he continues to be paid. They have no choice but to give him a suspension with pay until the investigation and/or hearing moves forward.

  12. Come on? I truly don’t think they are the same thing. He is still getting paid and getting a vacation out of it. That is not punishment IMO.

  13. Channel 7 just did a report. They acknowledged that Brodsky showed up in court at 10:30. They also said they expect the attorneys to give an interview at the conclusion of the hearing.

  14. Nevermind. I had thought actual suspension was only an actual punishment. Not a big deal. Go ahead and delete my posts about this as it is silly to argue over semantics.

  15. TAI:

    If he is not reinstated, he will owe the money he’s being paid, and the benefits they continue to pay for. Don’t think he’s on a pleasure trip, he’s not. If they didn’t pay him, he should have been able to apply for unemployment compensation, if Oak Brook didn’t fight it. If he received unemployment compensation but was reinstated, he’d have to pay the State back. So, things aren’t always as they seem.

    I think I’m done with the word mincing for now, TAI. But, it’s all how one perceives it, I guess. 🙂

  16. I wasn’t trying to make a point BTW – when I read it I just thought it was a mistake. Oh well. The other articles say it was a suspension so maybe it was. I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

  17. rescueapet :

    joehoseyGreenberg said he is “thoroughly confused.” Well, yeah, probably.

    I honestly can’t stop laughing over this. Whooda thought that Drewpy could find more than one clueless attorney to represent him?

    You get what you pay for, Drewpy!

  18. Probably, the reason Greenberg is confused, is because, at the last hearing, AFAIK, he was using the “vindictive prosecution” defense. Brodsky is using the Second Amendment defense. They don’t seem to have a consensus, thus, the confusion. Ooops.

  19. facsmiley :
    TAI, patience… A tweet is limited to 140 characters. I’m sure Hosey will fill in the blanks when his story comes out.

    I know. LOL – Patience is not one of my virtues!

  20. LOL, Brodsky said he’s not been able to find any other police officer being charged with what Drew is being charged with. To that, I would say, how does one determine how and if any other police officers are actually in possession of illegal weapons? Unless a search warrant is done on a police officer’s home, how would anyone know that? Just asking.

    Obviously, if it’s a weapon that special permission was given for in the use of law enforcement work, there’s no need to charge them with illegal possession.

    I’m not getting where Brodsky is going with this.

  21. And I wanted to say “And Joel – Ummm – You are running an hour late so stop the yapping and get to defending your client!” 🙂

  22. rescueapet :On Channel 9 (WGN), they reported that Brodsky admitted helping Drew write his latest letter.
    Ah, okay.

    WHAT?

    That has got to be one of the most stunning pieces of stupidity a defense lawyer can come up with. Drew runs his mouth and calls EVERYONE on the opposing side names and Brodsky HELPED him write it?

    By the time they finally get to court, the Prosecution won’t have to open their mouth. All they’ll need to do is present a slideshow. (Oh, but of course, Brodsky will try to prevent such blatantly prejudicial evidence from getting admitted. He can always try that one again!)

    What a freak show!

  23. I’m curious about the nature of the help Brodsky gave to Drew. Did Joel just type up Drew’s handwritten letter or did he actually suggest and/or write content?

    Who was calling out “Jim” (Glasgow) in a snotty way? Drew or Joel?

    I realize no one here has the answers to those questions yet, but I’d like to find out…

  24. Facs @ #49 – I certainly hope one of the nitwits checked with Stephen Peterson to make sure he gave his go-ahead to calling his Chief of Police an “idiotic moron.”

    Tell me, where in corporate America can someone call the CEO an idiotic moron and expect to have a job to come back to the next day? Who was the idiotic moron that decided to let that little ditty make it to the newspaper? Is Stephen Peterson’s FOP attorney proud of that remark and does she condone it?

  25. OMG, if this wasnt so pathetic, I would have peed myself! I can’t for the life of me stop laughing at this 3 ring circus….You know what they say about Karma….and so far Drew is getting his.Maybe Brodsky’s next adventure will be opening up a comedy act.He and all the other flunky lawyers on the Scream Team…IMO…Still cant stop laughing…

  26. I wonder where Shark Lopez was today. It might be that he’s trying to distance himself as quickly as possible, realizing that he’s hitched his wagon to a couple of unpredictable horses and if he doesn’t get off the team NOW, his reputation will tank right along with the rest of them.

  27. facs or rescue, does Hosey usually type out an article the same day that he apppears in court or is it usually the next day?

  28. From what I’ve seen, he usually writes his story the same day, but if the story comes out in the Herald News, it doesn’t usually show up until close to midnight.

  29. rescueapet :
    On Channel 9 (WGN), they reported that Brodsky admitted helping Drew write his latest letter.
    Ah, okay.

    I have a feeling that tape could become Exhibit I in Drew’s appeal for ineffective counsel…

  30. facsmiley :From what I’ve seen, he usually writes his story the same day, but if the story comes out in the Herald News, it doesn’t usually show up until close to midnight.

    Ugh….too late for me to wait up. Maybe he can be persuaded to Tweet us with a summary.

  31. thinkaboutit2 :

    rescueapet :On Channel 9 (WGN), they reported that Brodsky admitted helping Drew write his latest letter.Ah, okay.

    I have a feeling that tape could become Exhibit I in Drew’s appeal for ineffective counsel…

    I would think that an “ineffective counsel” defense is based more on procedural slip-ups than on sheer stupidity, but maybe I’m wrong.

    Anyone with half a brain should know that you don’t encourage your client to slander the opposing side. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be practicing law. In the case of these two letters, even if Brodsky didn’t actually coach Drew to write those words, he could have easily blacked them out before he handed them off to Sneed.

    Dumb. Just plain dumb.

  32. Funny that Brodky referred today to the issue raised by Judge Richard Schoenstedt (when the case was dismmised by him last year)that there has never been a case like Drew’s in the American jurisdiction. It does not make the rifle legal but I am afraid that the Judge may come back to this (HIS OWN!) argument and dismiss the case. We will see but Brodsky has never before raised this issue himself.

    Forgive me, I am getting suspicious, but I do not trust RS (as the State didn’t) because of his former decisions.
    However, I believe the State is well prepared and can bring in a legal expert who would easily explain the issues related to the firearm laws. The fact that they cannot find a precedence is not the reason for illegal activities. IMO.

  33. thinkaboutit2 :

    rescueapet :
    On Channel 9 (WGN), they reported that Brodsky admitted helping Drew write his latest letter.
    Ah, okay.

    I have a feeling that tape could become Exhibit I in Drew’s appeal for ineffective counsel…

    So perhaps the publishing of the photo of the children for all to see and the call for help for Stephen was a decision made by both Drew and Joel? Priceless.
    TAI, the narcissist that lives in Drew Peterson will never see the ineffective counsel that represents him. IMO

  34. thinkaboutit2 :

    rescueapet :
    On Channel 9 (WGN), they reported that Brodsky admitted helping Drew write his latest letter.
    Ah, okay.

    I have a feeling that tape could become Exhibit I in Drew’s appeal for ineffective counsel…

    No, I don’t agree. Remember, he recently sent a letter to the Chicago Tribune, in which he praised his lead attorney, and said he assembled one of the best legal teams he’s seen in all of his years of police work.

    Joel made sure he had a back up plan to nip that in the bud, heh?

  35. rescueapet :

    thinkaboutit2 :

    rescueapet :
    On Channel 9 (WGN), they reported that Brodsky admitted helping Drew write his latest letter.
    Ah, okay.

    I have a feeling that tape could become Exhibit I in Drew’s appeal for ineffective counsel…

    No, I don’t agree. Remember, he recently sent a letter to the Chicago Tribune, in which he praised his lead attorney, and said he assembled one of the best legal teams he’s seen in all of his years of police work.

    Joel made sure he had a back up plan to nip that in the bud, heh?

    So, maybe Joel wrote that one too? 😉

  36. Stephen Peterson has been suspended at least five times in the six years he has worked in Oak Brook.

    “None of it started until after Stacy Peterson disappeared,” Brodsky said.

    I believe Brodsky is mistaken about that. He’s been reprimanded 2x since Drew became notorious. 5 – 2 = 3. Sounds about wrong to me.

  37. “It’s like prosecuting Barack Obama for not getting his passport stamped when he goes to a foreign country – it’s absurd,” said defense attorney Steve Greenberg outside court

    Absurd is right. That’s the worst analogy I’ve ever heard.

  38. rescueapet :

    thinkaboutit2 :

    rescueapet :
    On Channel 9 (WGN), they reported that Brodsky admitted helping Drew write his latest letter.
    Ah, okay.

    I have a feeling that tape could become Exhibit I in Drew’s appeal for ineffective counsel…

    No, I don’t agree. Remember, he recently sent a letter to the Chicago Tribune, in which he praised his lead attorney, and said he assembled one of the best legal teams he’s seen in all of his years of police work.
    Joel made sure he had a back up plan to nip that in the bud, heh?

    No saying that he will be the one working that angle – but a future lawyer of his could. I will never say never in this case. 🙂

  39. #65 You may be right, facs. LOL
    Can you remember Brodsky willing to fire Abbott? I guess for the lack of literary talent.;)

  40. facsmiley :

    rescueapet :

    thinkaboutit2 :

    rescueapet :
    On Channel 9 (WGN), they reported that Brodsky admitted helping Drew write his latest letter.
    Ah, okay.

    I have a feeling that tape could become Exhibit I in Drew’s appeal for ineffective counsel…

    No, I don’t agree. Remember, he recently sent a letter to the Chicago Tribune, in which he praised his lead attorney, and said he assembled one of the best legal teams he’s seen in all of his years of police work.
    Joel made sure he had a back up plan to nip that in the bud, heh?

    So, maybe Joel wrote that one too?

    LOL!

  41. rescueapet :

    Stephen Peterson has been suspended at least five times in the six years he has worked in Oak Brook.
    “None of it started until after Stacy Peterson disappeared,” Brodsky said.

    I believe Brodsky is mistaken about that. He’s been reprimanded 2x since Drew became notorious. 5 – 2 = 3. Sounds about wrong to me.

    Brodsky is a lawyer not a mathematician. LOL

  42. rescueapet :
    TAI #71 – Yep, I’ll bet he did.
    I yam a good lawyer, I yam a good lawyer, yep, I yam.

    That was FACs’ comment – I was just giggling after reading it!

  43. I feel really sorry for Drew that he did not have opportunity to say goodbye to his children. A crowd of people and reporters sourrounded his house in that early morning and he did not suspect anything. He simply left the house to return a book to the library… and they caught him!

  44. thinkaboutit2 :

    rescueapet :TAI #71 – Yep, I’ll bet he did.I yam a good lawyer, I yam a good lawyer, yep, I yam.

    That was FACs’ comment – I was just giggling after reading it!

    Yes, today has been a good day for belly-laughs!

    Can’t wait to hear Hosey’s story on Greenberg’s statement that he was “totally confused.” Should provide more comic relief.

  45. I wonder if Drew is going to be upset that Mayor Daley’s news that he is retiring is likely going to take top billing over his court case story on the news today… 😛

  46. cyrhla :

    I feel really sorry for Drew that he did not have opportunity to say goodbye to his children. A crowd of people and reporters sourrounded his house in that early morning and he did not suspect anything. He simply left the house to return a book to the library… and they caught him!

    Didn’t he say before that he left the house precisely because he didn’t want to be arrested with the kids present? I could swear he said that somewhere.

  47. Or maybe it was that the ISP waited until he left the house so that it wasn’t done in front of the kids. At any rate, Drew stated to Matt Lauer and in his earlier letters that he knew they were going to arrest him that day. He even stuck his head in a police van and mocked the officers inside. Maybe he should have said his goodbyes when he left the house.

  48. It seems that Brodsky is following Blago’s lead on PR stunts — do they still share the same publicist??

    http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-chicago/drew-peterson-takes-cue-from-rod-blagojevich-latest-appeal-to-public-opinion

    “If some of these themes sounds familiar, it’s because Peterson’s claims of malicious prosecution resemble those recently voiced by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich – right down to the claims the Peterson prosecution is being done ‘at the expense of the hard working Illinois tax payer.'”

    “When prosecutors announced he would be retried, Blagojevich and his attorneys worked through the media to state their case in the court of public opinion. Blagojevich, knowing the state’s financial crisis is foremost in voter’s minds, appealed to taxpayers to consider how much a retrial is going to cost the state.

    “Blagojevich also appealed to the maternal and paternal instincts of the public as he told of the prosecution’s attempts to deny his little girls the father they love. He detailed how, on the day of his arrest, he was whisked away by police in front of his children.

    “It’s an interesting public relations strategy, one that works better for a shamed politician accused of corruption. than a four-times married former cop suspected of killing the mothers of four of his children.”

  49. I believe they both still use Selig. And the person who wrote this article is saying what we have all already been saying. I knew that when Blago got the hung jury that we would see more and more stuff from Drew to get his side out. They know that the prosecution cannot defend the case in the court of public opinion so it is a way to get their side out in hopes of having their client acquitted or charges dropped if the prosecution decides they don’t want to retry after a hung jury.

  50. Oh dear. (From Hosey’s article):

    If you would have mustered a militia at the time of the revolution, what kind of weapons would the militia have shown up with?” Brodsky asked, then answered that, “You would have seen people showing up with pistols and showing up with rifles of all different lengths. Because of that, it cannot be banned.”

  51. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Drew did something to Stacy. Drew knew the police would come with a warrant. Drew knew the gun was illegal. Otherwise, why would he have dumped it on his son? I’m not buying “It was one of his favorites, and wanted it out of harms way.” He knew damn right well that it was an illegal weapon.

    It just does not make sense, and if it doesn’t make sense, it usually isn’t true.

    I don’t understand why the judges in Illinois take so long to make a decision. In other states, it is usually within a day or two.

  52. Peterson attorneys: Drop gun charge

    September 7, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    Drew Peterson had a small gun, but his lawyers say there’s nothing wrong with that.

    Peterson’s legal team summed up its arguments to have his felony gun case tossed before it goes to trial, but the judge presiding over it is waiting until next month before he hands down his decision.

    A shackled Peterson, who also faces a murder charge in connection with the drowning of his third wife and is suspected of slaying his missing fourth wife as well, watched passively Tuesday as two of his six attorneys argued to have his gun case dismissed. Peterson was arrested in May 2008 and charged with possessing a semi-automatic assault rifle with a barrel short of the state-mandated 16 inches.

    One of Peterson’s attorneys, Steven Greenberg, insisted that Peterson is immune from prosecution because he carried the weapon while serving as a Bolingbrook police officer.

    “Police officers are allowed to carry guns and they’re allowed to carry guns that would otherwise be illegal,” said Greenberg, who added, “There’s a different set of rules for police officers.”

    Another of Peterson’s attorneys, Joel Brodsky, launched a rambling argument in which he suggested that soldiers in the revolution might have armed themselves with a similar-sized rifle, apparently clearing the way for his client to have one more than two centuries later.

    “If you would have mustered a militia at the time of the revolution, what kind of weapons would the militia have shown up with?” Brodsky asked, then answered that, “You would have seen people showing up with pistols and showing up with rifles of all different lengths. Because of that, it cannot be banned.”

    The rifle in question was surrendered to the state police by Peterson’s son Stephen Peterson in November 2007. Less than a week before, Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished, never to be seen again.

    In the wake of Stacy’s disappearance, Drew Peterson anticipated a police search of his home, Stephen Peterson testified last month, and did not want to lose that particular gun to the law. Stephen Peterson said it was on of his father’s “favorites.”

    Two days before the state police got around to raiding Drew Peterson’s house and seizing numerous other firearms, along with his computers and automobiles, he gave it to his son for safe keeping.

    Stephen Peterson faces no criminal charges in connection with accepting his father’s allegedly illegal rifle, but was suspended from his job with the Oak Brook Police Department. He continues to receive his pay while awaiting a hearing.

    Brodsky and Greenberg both accused the Oak Brook brass of punishing Stephen Peterson to get at his more infamous father.

    “I think it’s a direct result of his father perhaps being a disliked individual,” Brodsky said, with Greenberg adding that the Oak Brook’s higher-ups “should be ashamed of themselves.”

    Greenberg also slammed the state’s attorney’s office for bringing the gun case against Peterson in the first place.

    “Prosecuting Drew Peterson for this is sort of akin to prosecuting Barack Obama for not getting his passport stamped when he goes to a foreign country,” he said, adding, “Let’s get on to the real case.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/2682996,peterson-gun-hearing_JO090710.article

  53. Joel Brodsky, launched a rambling argument in which he suggested that soldiers in the revolution might have armed themselves with a similar-sized rifle, apparently clearing the way for his client to have one more than two centuries later.

    “If you would have mustered a militia at the time of the revolution, what kind of weapons would the militia have shown up with?” Brodsky asked, then answered that, “You would have seen people showing up with pistols and showing up with rifles of all different lengths. Because of that, it cannot be banned.”

    Oh my! 🙂

  54. OK, I guess I see what Greenberg meant by his analogy now. The gun charge is small potatoes compared to the murder charge. But the way I see it, the State was kind of forced to charge him once he won his appeal to get his guns back. They couldn’t very well release what they realized was an illegal weapon back to him, and the only way to keep him from having it was to charge him.

  55. “In the wake of Stacy’s disappearance, Drew Peterson anticipated a police search of his home, Stephen Peterson testified last month, and did not want to lose that particular gun to the law. Stephen Peterson said it was on of his father’s ‘favorites.’”

    So Stephen admits that he knew Drew was giving him the guns because he expected the police to confiscate them. That shows intent to conceal, IMHO of course.

  56. “If you would have mustered a militia at the time of the revolution, what kind of weapons would the militia have shown up with?” Brodsky asked, then answered that, “You would have seen people showing up with pistols and showing up with rifles of all different lengths. Because of that, it cannot be banned.”

    That statement proves to me that Brodsky knows he’s skating on thin ice. If he has to go all the way back to the Revolutionary War he’s admitting that there is no case law that supports his position.

  57. “Police officers are allowed to carry guns and they’re allowed to carry guns that would otherwise be illegal,” said Greenberg, who added, “There’s a different set of rules for police officers.”

    I would expect that part of the Prosecution’s position is that Drew was not a police officer at the time the gun was confiscated and, even if he had received permission to carry an otherwise illegal weapon, it should have been turned over to the PD when he retired — or Drew should have had the rifle returned to its orginal state in order to make it legal once he was no longer an officer.

    Either way, Drew should have known better.

  58. facsmiley :

    Denise :
    Hello everyone! Has anyone heard anymore about the remains found at the Dunes in Indiana?

    I haven’t seen anything further.

    The last I read, they said, it will take a couple weeks to ID.

  59. Peterson should not have had short-barreled rifle, prosecutors say

    September 7, 2010
    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter

    Although he was a cop, Drew Peterson wasn’t allowed to own a short-barreled assault rifle, Will County prosecutors argued at a court hearing Tuesday.

    Judge Richard Schoenstedt deferred until Oct. 1 a ruling on whether prosecutors can try Peterson on felony charges he owned and illegally modified the weapon while he worked as a Bolingbrook police officer.

    The 56-year-old Peterson still faces murder charges in the 2003 bathtub drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, though that trial has been delayed by pre-trial appeals.

    Peterson — who also has been named a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy —was arrested in 2008 for the illegal weapons charge. The charge was filed after investigators learned he had given a short-barreled AR-15 rifle to his son — also a suburban police officer — just after Stacy Peterson vanished from the couple’s Bolingbrook home.

    The gun charge initially was dismissed by Schoenstedt in November 2008, then reinstated after prosecutors successfully appealed the dismissal.

    Defense attorneys Joel Brodsky and Steve Greenberg contended Tuesday that Peterson was allowed to own the rifle because he used it for his police duties. Prosecutors disputed that, arguing Peterson knew he was supposed to have the weapon and gave it to his son to prevent police from seizing it during their investigation into Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    “That has nothing to do with his duties as a law enforcement officer,’’ prosecutor John Connor said.

    Prosecutors also blasted recent public claims by Peterson, who remains jailed on $20 million bond, that his rights have been ignored.

    “In the history of jurisprudence, no defendant’s rights have been better protected than Drew Peterson’s,’’ said Charles Pelkie, a spokesman for Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

    Peterson’s attorneys unsuccessfully tried to have him released from the Will County Jail earlier this year after prosecutors delayed his murder trial, with Peterson contending in a letter to Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed “the law says I was supposed to be freed. But like most of my other constitutional rights this too has been violated.’’

    After Peterson’s trial was delayed, a judge determined during a hearing that there were “compelling’’ reasons to retain Peterson’s $20 million bond, Pelkie said.

    “They haven’t been able to convince the court on the bond at all,’’ Pelkie said.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2683480,peterson-gun-hearing-090710.article

  60. http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-peterson-gun-case-sept7,0,5982328.story

    Excerpt

    “We could never find a state law gun charging against a licensed officer in the history of the state. Why Drew Peterson? Again, they don’t have evidence against Drew so they’re trying to stick him with the charge.”

    A decision on that charge is expected October 1.

    Brodsky also says he helped Peterson write a letter from jail, asking the media to “watch over” his children now that legal proceedings are underway against his oldest son.

  61. I have no doubts that the gun was one of Drew’s favorites. It was, after all, illegal, surreptitious, made him feel that he was getting away with something (again) and also let him thumb his nose at the BPD. (Or give them the finger, whichever).
    Those are enough reasons-a gun that was legal and ordinary would never have been a favorite of the Drewpy.

  62. Peterson urges judge to toss out illegal gun case
    By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff

    Likening it to prosecuting a traveling President Obama if he neglected to get his passport stamped, attorneys for Drew Peterson urged a judge Tuesday to toss out an illegal gun charge against the retired Bolingbrook police sergeant.

    His defense team argued police officers are allowed to carry a semiautomatic rifle with a shortened barrel, even if the weapon is banned, which they maintain is also unconstitutional.

    They cited case law to try to convince Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt, but prosecutors countered any exemption was intended to protect police officers when they are off-duty by allowing them to carry a concealed handgun, even if they are outside the town they are sworn to serve and protect.

    Oak Brook Police Officer Stephen Peterson recently testified for the prosecution that his infamous father brought two bags holding as many as three guns to stash at the son’s North Aurora house Oct. 30, 2007.

    That was days after Drew Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, 23, vanished. State police raided the couple’s Bolingbrook home that Nov. 1. Officer Stephen Peterson promptly handed the guns over to state police investigators.

    “What Drew Peterson was doing that morning was transferring the weapon to his son,” Assistant Will County State’s Attorney John Connor said Tuesday. “That had nothing to do with his duties as a law enforcement officer.”

    Prosecutors charged Drew Peterson with the weapons violation in 2008 as the investigations into Stacy’s disappearance and the mysterious March 2004 bathtub drowning death of third wife Kathleen Savio continued.

    Officer Stephen Peterson was placed on paid leave Aug. 26 – three days after his testimony – for taking possession of his father’s weapons. He is fighting the suspension, which marks the latest of more than one half dozen verbal, written and forced unpaid days off that he has received since April 2005.

    Drew Peterson came to his son’s defense in an Aug. 27 letter to the media in which he lambasted Oak Brook Police Chief Thomas Sheahan for unfairly persecuting his 31-year-old son because, as defense attorney Steven Greenberg put it, “the perceived sins of the father.”

    Greenberg urged Judge Schoenstedt to dismiss the illegal gun case because, he said, a different set of rules apply under the law to police officers.

    “Prosecuting Drew Peterson for this is akin to prosecuting Barack Obama for not getting his passport stamped when he travels to a foreign country,” Greenberg said outside of court. “It’s absurd.”

    Schoenstedt is expected to rule Oct. 1.

    Drew Peterson, 56, denies any wrongdoing in Stacy’s disappearance. He has not been charged in that case. Stacy’s disappearance sparked a renewed investigation in Savio’s drowning death, later ruled a homicide.

    Peterson was charged in May 2009. He remains held on a $20 million bond as prosecutors appeal a judge’s pretrial ruling barring the majority of hearsay statements they argue helps prove Peterson’s guilt.

    Sheahan declined Tuesday to respond to Peterson’s jailhouse letter, but a spokesman for Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow disputed the defendant’s claims that his rights are being violated.

    “Nothing can be further from the truth. In the history of jurisprudence, no criminal defendant’s rights have ever been better protected than Drew Peterson’s,” said Charles Pelkie, citing lengthy pretrial hearings involving the large defense team. “They have yet to be able to convince a judge or appellate court panel to ignore the evidence in this case.”

    Pelkie added: “He has a First Amendment right to write letters and the press has a right to print them. It is what it is.”

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=406406

  63. “They have yet to be able to convince a judge or appellate court panel to ignore the evidence in this case.”

    Isn’t this what it’s all about? Peterson has a teams of six, or seven, attorneys. They’re supposed to be working their butts off for him. Instead, you have the lead attorney describing the soldiers in the revolution.

    No wonder Joe Hosey tweeted that today’s proceedings were painful to watch. I can only imagine. I think this is what we’ve been saying for about three years now.

  64. Will County Circuit Court Schedule
    http://willcountycircuitcourt.com/

    09L 000326 Estate of Kathleen Savio, Deceased wrongful death suit
    BRODSKY JOEL ALAN 9 13 10 900 WCCA PETERSON DREW 09L 000326 CIVJ
    PETERSON DREW 9 13 10 WCCA 900 09L 000326 Case
    VARSEK LAWRENCE E. 9 13 10 900 WCCA SAVIO HENRY J 09L 000326 CIVJ
    SAVIO HENRY J 9 13 10 WCCA 900 09L 000326 Case

  65. Brodsky is soooo ridiculous! I love watching the video of him going to court and he stumbles over his words SO BAD, forgeting what BS tactic he told himself he was going to use. Note to self: ‘Oh right, go w/the Blagojevich tactic, go with the Blagojevich tactic’ LOL! He gets so tongue tied trying to remember what he was scripted to say…. “It’s unamerican, can’t believe this is happening in America, in the state of Illinois.” Man, get some original material would ya! Notice how Brodsky puffs out his chest at how proud he is of himself for remembering to use the words…”it’s unamerican!”

  66. If you take away all the nonsense, clowning around, buffooning, attention grabbing, pathological lying and distortion of facts by the Defense Team, at the end of the day you are still left with a list of very serious charges and additional cases, an ongoing investigation into the disappearance of Stacy Peterson and God knows what else is being investigated and uncovered as we speak.

    All these charges and investigations are not going to go away by themselves, they will be pursued by the State for as long as it takes and it therefore also matters little what Drew writes, how often he writes and who he writes to as his opinion these days is voiced from a small cell where he has no control over anything or anybody and that’s where he’s at these days!

  67. However, I do not think the Judge is going to base his decision on the revolutionary theory of Brodsky (as it refers to the times when no firearms laws were established) or vindictiveness (as the Appellate Court has already decided otherwise).

    The goal of the National Firearms Act established in 1934 was to “was to regulate what were considered “gangster weapons” such as machine guns and hand grenades. Then U.S. Attorney General Homer S. Cummings recognized that firearms could not be banned outright under the Second Amendment, so he proposed restrictive regulation in the form of an expensive tax and Federal registration. Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun” [info from Wikipedia]

    So the intend of the Act has been clearly defined; it also says any exemptions must be registered with BATFE. Drew’s rifle wasn’t.

    The act also clearly states that the weapon under exemptions applies only to (among the others) police officers while on duty. It is logical as they have to perform specials tasks then. Two police weapons have been released to Drew by the BBPD and even if he had ever been authorized to use his private rifle on the police shooting range (and maybe on duty), he had never been allowed to modify it and the ealier pictures of the gun show it wasn’t. As he never had it registered with BATFE, either individually or through the agenda of the BBPD, it makes the gun illegal. Even if he had this rifle registered with BATFE for professional purposes, it was still illegal for him to transfer it off duty.

    I am really curious what legal grounds could the Judge find to dismiss the case. I guess we could expect another appeal of the State then. Never-ending story?

  68. Interesting stuff, Cyrhla.

    I don’t believe anyone really thinks Peterson is on solid ground about having this illegal weapon, really. He shouldn’t have it. But, I don’t believe Brodsky thinks this is a serious matter either, judging by the ridiculous argument he forged in court yesterday. In that regard, he wasn’t serious, was he? Could it be he was trying to mock the State for even bringing these charges by using an argument that was completely ludicrous? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone can form a logical opinion as to what Brodsky was doing for his client in court yesterday.

    It is obvious that Brodsky’s skills, and I use that word for lack of a better term, are best suited for trying his client’s case in the media, because, for sure, he has no courtroom skills. Geeze, he’s even been known to fall asleep in court during the crucial questioning of the defense’s forensic witness in the KSavio matter. How does he even get any respect from his contemporaries?

  69. It’s appearing that brodsky is tiring. he’s not as cocky. shtick is getting “old.” needs new material…but there is none!

  70. Heh, SYW, I think you’re right. He does sound like he’s tiring. Like we are. We all want to see what the defense has in the courtroom, and, unfortunately, it looks like it’s not much. His vindictive prosecution bullshit is old too. So, what does Brodsky do? He gives the judge a history lessen as the means of his defense. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

  71. I wonder why Brodsky is sticking his nose in Stephen Peterson’s business, where it doesn’t belong. He’s not representing SPeterson in his suspension matter, and he should not be making comments and/or statements about it. Personally, I believe if Brodsky were representing SPeterson, he might as well just turn in his gear now and relinquish his police powers, because he’d sink in a minute under his defense. I also think that SPeterson’s attorney should be calling Brodsky and writing him letters and tell him to keep his nose in his own business.

    IMO, Brodsky should be ashamed of himself by not trying to calm his client down about his son’s situation, and counsel him to hold back any name-calling or off-key remarks about his son’s superiors. Brodsky, it was reported, said he helped Peterson with his latest letter. Is he nuts? He lets his client call his son’s Chief a “moronic idiot,” when Stephen is fighting for his career? Wouldn’t you think he’d tell his client to use restraint and let the facts speak for him? Nope, not Brodsky. He enables his client by indulging in name calling. Oh, and then he tries to use the media to promote his favorite defense–vindictive prosecution. AND IT’S NOT EVEN HIS CASE TO DEFEND!!!!

    I think professors that teach men and women the courses that they need to become lawyers should use him as an example of what a “moronic idiot” lawyer is in real life, and what to do to avoid it.

  72. I think my little girl Lacy Ann needs to be cautioned on how to walk home from school so she doesn’t cross the street in the wrong place and get a citation from our heroes in the State Police for jaywalking…

    Hmmm. Where did we first hear those words, about Lacy being the next target of the ISP for jaywalking. Brodsky!!!!!

    I’m beginning to think that Peterson has cracked, and he’s turned into a zombie, totally controlled by Brodsky. I don’t believe he’s thinking for himself anymore. As I re-read the rambling letter he supposedly wrote, I believe Brodsky probably wrote it, or most of it, and Peterson merely signed it. Peterson is in deep trouble, IMO.

  73. Rescue, you have a great point re: Brodsky/Stephen. Why is it his business to comment? Maybe Drew had him sign a “disclosure” that he will do his lawyerin’ for the father/son team! Nothing brodsky does is by the “professional book.” He’s suchg a hack!!! LOL! Even blagojevich’s lawyer, although a clown, had some professional decorum about him — even if just a little!::)

  74. Absurdity: BS, applesauce, bull*, crap, craziness, farce, flapdoodle, folly, foolishness, hot air, idiocy, illogicality, illogicalness, improbability, inanity, incongruity, insanity, irrationality, jazz, jive, ludicrousness, ridiculousness, senselessness, silliness, stupidity, unreasonableness

    Yep-that’s the Brodsky. Should have his picture included in the definition. (I especially love the “applesauce” one.) LOL

  75. sureyouwill :

    Rescue, you have a great point re: Brodsky/Stephen. Why is it his business to comment? Maybe Drew had him sign a “disclosure” that he will do his lawyerin’ for the father/son team! Nothing brodsky does is by the “professional book.” He’s suchg a hack!!! LOL! Even blagojevich’s lawyer, although a clown, had some professional decorum about him — even if just a little!::)

    Not only that, why is Selig doing press releases about Stephen’s legal problems? Is he now doing PR for the whole family? Does Stephen even want that? I certainly hope that’s the case and he’s not making statements unasked.

  76. Right, Facs! Can you imagine, Stephen going OMG what the heck are you doin? His ex-wife must be sooo embarassed too! Have we ever seen a picutre of her? Not that it matters, but just makes you wonder what type is “interested” in someone like “them!” She had to have an inkling as to what type of people they really were by staying around the house those years! To bad she didn’t have the foresight to run like the dickens! I do feel for her though

  77. Just wondering why Stephen’s Mother does not comment. Does Grandma Carol Brown get to see her grandchildren?.. or the great grandchild? If not, why not?

  78. judgin :

    Just wondering why Stephen’s Mother does not comment. Does Grandma Carol Brown get to see her grandchildren?.. or the great grandchild? If not, why not?

    Jeeez, the last thing I want is for the press to be hounding family members who have nothing to do with the cases at hand. IMO, it’s none of our business. 🙂

    BTW, Carol Brown’s two sons with Drew are Eric and Stephen. Her grandchildren would be their children (Stephen has the one that I know of – a baby). Great grandchildren? I don’t think so!

  79. This case is a little different but interesting.

    Police Chief convicted of possession of Illegal weapons
    “This is a ground-breaking case,” Williams’ attorney Larry English said after the unanimous federal jury verdict was read. “… If any law enforcement officer has an illegal weapon outside of the (police department’s evidence room) they are subject to criminal charges.”
    read at
    http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?106827-Police-Chief-convicted-of-possession-of-Illegal-weapons

  80. Hmmm is Boobsky and Selig sticking there big fat noses where they dont belong? I would hope that if Steve needed a lawyer, he would look elsewhere after seeing what JB has been doing… Heck, I would…..It’s so sad, this this EVIL excuse for a human not only took away his children’s mothers, he has destroyed his 6 childrens lives….thats alot of baggage for those kids to carry.There is a special place in HELL for likes of Drew and Company, and they are waiting for them all. Remember the movie Ghost? Thats how I see it happening….IMO

  81. IMO….Brodsky is no match for a union lawyer,IMO….he is no match for a reputable lawyer, No lawyer is in his league, thank the good lord.He is in a league of his own… He better have better tricks up his sleeve cause his client is that of a BROKEN MAN,,, NO CONTROL.living in that small cell he calls home, come on Drew fess up… Where is Stacy? and maybe ….just maybe, you can save your soul, and not sell it to the devil!! And maybe your son,Steve will be able to salvage his life, and just maybe, your little children, wont be heckeled by the other kids, and what they are saying to them, YOU know kids can be cruel. Come On Drew, save your kids…

  82. Meirish, I agree it’s time for Drew to finish this circus for the sake of ALL the children involved. All those legal tricks, motions and appeals only put off the time when Drew gets what he deserves. For him it does not matter, but those children will never get this precious time back. He deprived them of their childhood, close family relations, mother’s love and even money.

    The philosophy of Drew Peterson has never been to live honest life but how not to get caught.

    BTW, don’t you find it rediculous that he immediatley took the Fifth (not to answer the grand jury’s questions) and soon after that he became very talkative to the media?

  83. cyrhla :Meirish, I agree it’s time for Drew to finish this circus for the sake of ALL the children involved. All those legal tricks, motions and appeals only put off the time when Drew gets what he deserves. For him it does not matter, but those children will never get this precious time back. He deprived them of their childhood, close family relations, mother’s love and even money.
    The philosophy of Drew Peterson has never been to live honest life but how not to get caught.
    BTW, don’t you find it rediculous that he immediatley took the Fifth (not to answer the grand jury’s questions) and soon after that he became very talkative to the media?

    Very Well said cyrhla
    it is ridiculous indeed.After taking the Fifth, he hasnt shut his pie.

  84. Can you imagine Peterson showing the 10-year-old pictures of Thomas M in front of the grand jury testifying that they were Thomas’s latest picture? In front of TV he can do everything without any consequences.

  85. “The state has given me little option here,” Judge Richard Schoenstedt said gravely. “As a result of that discovery violation, this court orders…[that] those charges against Drew Peterson are dismissed.”
    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/11/vindictive-prosecution-defense-allowed-for-peterson.html
    I just have to ask this, and if it’s been discussed and/or explained, please forgive the interruption. But-how common is it to bring a case back for a ruling with the judge who originally ruled against it? I realize the appeals court reversed Judge Schoenstedt’s ruling, but is it proper or prudent for him to be making a decision on his own decision?

  86. That is a good question, cherylj. Could be gounds for mistrial? I’m only guessing. I think in this case the judge is not going to be able to find a way to rule not guilty.

  87. I’ve been reflecting upon the Minutemen defense.Do you suppose it would be OK to walk about with a concealed sickle? Sawn-off pitchfork?

  88. To my understanding, he does not have to make decision on his own decision. He must follow the decision of the Appellate Court and make a new one.
    However, I wonder what could be the other grounds to dismiss the case. Luck of precedences to base the verdict on?
    Can the prosecutors ask for changing the judge?

  89. bucketoftea :
    I’ve been reflecting upon the Minutemen defense.Do you suppose it would be OK to walk about with a concealed sickle? Sawn-off pitchfork?

    LOL, Bucket. You killed me. LOL

  90. The Revolution? Reminded me of this gem from the LKL interview:

    BRODSKY: That’s true. Also, there hasn’t been a prosecution for a murder in Illinois without a body since the 1850s. So I’m not really concerned about that.

    http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/11/lkl.01.html

    Pssssst – Joel, um it is 2010! Let the past go!

    Oh yeah, and by the way, when you made the statement above – IMO – you admitted that your client committed MURDER! 😉

  91. And he was wrong about that too wasn’t he Harley J? I’m pretty sure someone posted links to numerous cases of “no body” murder convictions after Joel made that assertion.

  92. cyrhla :

    bucketoftea :
    I’ve been reflecting upon the Minutemen defense.Do you suppose it would be OK to walk about with a concealed sickle? Sawn-off pitchfork?

    LOL, Bucket. You killed me. LOL

    And to further that metaphor, could President Obama get arrested for not having his passport stamped while carrying a concealed cat-o-nine-tails on an international flight…in 1776?

  93. Way back when the weapon charges were new, I came across a case where an ex-police officer was convicted of not only carrying but discharging an illegally altered weapon. However, he ended up with only a 30-day sentence and probation (he was firing the gun on his own property). I don’t remember if he ever claimed to have carried the gun while an officer.

  94. Oh, I don’t doubt that this charge, even if results in a conviction, is going to get Peterson any jail time. I think this is more of a cat and mouse game. Once LE took possession of Peterson’s illegal weapon, they probably shrugged their shoulders and thought “why not.” He’s outside of the law possessing the gun, he was the target of an ongoing investigation, and to coin his own phrase, they weren’t there to blow sunshine up his ass. Besides, once he told LE his son had his guns stashed, they jumped on that too. I think it looks just as bad for Stephen that he took those guns from his father, but, as I have said all along, I think it sucks that his father put him in the situation he is in. So, IMO, they’re doing what police agencies do. They use others to put the screws to the one they’re aiming to get. Just what’s happening. What doesn’t usually happen is the father putting the son in the cross hairs. But, then, he just blames everyone else and shoots off letters and calls everyone names.

    When does anyone else think someday we’ll see some real evidence from the defense that shows Peterson isn’t what most of us think he is, not capable of doing what he’s being accused of, and certainly not the sole person who had the means and motive to lose two wives? Cuz if there was anything substantial out there, his lawyer would be shouting it from the rooftops, instead of using his spare time to read up on history to educate the judge in a weapons case.

  95. rescueapet :
    …if there was anything substantial out there, his lawyer would be shouting it from the rooftops, instead of using his spare time to read up on history to educate the judge in a weapons case.

    Brodsky actually could do with a little reading up prior to using pre-constitutional examples in court to try to win his constitutional arguments.

    “If you would have mustered a militia at the time of the revolution, what kind of weapons would the militia have shown up with?” Brodsky asked, then answered that, “You would have seen people showing up with pistols and showing up with rifles of all different lengths. Because of that, it cannot be banned.”

    U.S. revolutionary war – 1775–1783

    U.S. Constitution – adopted September 17, 1787

  96. A very interesting phrase-by-phrase analysis of one of Drew’s letters from jail:

    http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/09/drew-peterson-letter-from-jail.html

    [SNIP]

    I do get a lot of letters from new friends all sending encouraging words of love, friendship and hope.

    Extra words give us additional information. “all” is an extra word used for emphasis. If a sentence works without it, the additional word tells us the subject is sensitive. Why is it sensitive? We would need to ask Peterson, however, in context, he first tells us that his children do not visit (1) then the tells us, in a vague and passive way that others visit (2) but now, his 3rd issue is that he gets letters.

    I suggest that the “all” sensitivity indicates that Drew Peterson no longer has the support of friends and family and that “new” friends are not friends at all, but lost souls who seek to connect with infamous people via writing to prison; much like the troubled ones who send Casey Anthony money or marriage proposals.

    Drew Peterson is boasting yet the words he has chosen reveal that he is actually lonely and casts doubt on whether or not it was his decision not to have his children visit.

  97. and another:

    [SNIP]

    ...from my lawyers to prepare my case for trial. My legs are shackled to the floor and I sit on a small round stainless steel stool.

    Rather than report about “my trial” and the lawyers visiting for preparation and how that is going, Peterson immediately follows this with how he is suffering by being shackled and note the sensitive extra wording about the stool. He didn’t need to tell us that he sits during the visit. When “sit, stood, stand, sitting, standing, etc” enter a statement, it is an indication of stress or tension. Remember, it is important enough for a subject to state it, it is important.

    Then, this seemingly dull unimportant sentence is given additional words. Not only does he “sit” during the visit, but it is a “stool”. Not only is it a “stool” but a “stainless steel” stool. Not only is it a “stainless steel stool” but it is a “round” stainless steel stool. Not only is it a round stainless steel stool, but is is a “small” “round” stainless steel stool! Each additional word shows sensitivity to an already stressful topic.

    Question: Why is it sensitive?

    Answer: Because it is beneath Drew Peterson. (beneath his view of his own dignity and worth). the extra words show that it is not only sensitive, but highly sensitive; with each additional word holding meaning.

    Not many people would even mention that they sat for a visit, but the sensitivity attached is extreme. Drew Peterson has been called a narcissist and this would certainly confirm it. He deludes himself into thinking that he is of such high value that the recipients of this letter would actually be offended that he is forced to sit on a small, round stainless steel stool rather than a chair.

  98. “If you would have mustered a militia at the time of the revolution, what kind of weapons would the militia have shown up with?” Brodsky asked, then answered that, “You would have seen people showing up with pistols and showing up with rifles of all different lengths. Because of that, it cannot be banned.”

    U.S. revolutionary war – 1775–1783

    U.S. Constitution – adopted September 17, 1787

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

    You have to wonder why Joel is doing this to himself time and time again ?

    It’s probably because he just needs to blurt things out, regardless how inane/ irrelevant or unprofessional it makes him look.

    Since he’s so keen on quoting history, he may also consider the type of punishments handed out in the 18th Century or how well protected Drews rights would have been by comparison.

  99. Then, this seemingly dull unimportant sentence is given additional words. Not only does he “sit” during the visit, but it is a “stool”. Not only is it a “stool” but a “stainless steel” stool. Not only is it a “stainless steel stool” but it is a “round” stainless steel stool. Not only is it a round stainless steel stool, but is is a “small” “round” stainless steel stool! Each additional word shows sensitivity to an already stressful topic.

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

    His letters to the Press also show eerie similarity to the letters of Stacy sightings, such as a precise and very detailed description of a short sighting, the way a Police Officer would describe things in a Police report. hence his also very detailed description of the stool he sits on in jail – LOL !

  100. This article contains some additional comments by Stephen Peterson’s attorney.

    Peterson will fight any disciplinary action

    September 9, 2010
    By STEVE SCHERING Contributor

    Excerpts

    “The police department based their decision on the fact that he testified truthfully that he had his father’s guns,” Peterson’s attorney, Tamara Cummings, said. “They assume wrongdoing occurred.”

    Cummings believes, as a police officer, Stephen Peterson had every right to take possession of his father’s weapons and turn them over to authorities. Cummings also said Stephen Peterson has been “fully cooperating” with the investigation into Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    Oak Brook Police Chief Tom Sheahan has charged Peterson twice before with misconduct, but according to Cummings, those previous charges were either dropped or disciplinary action was “drastically reduced.”

    In a written statement, Cummings also called the latest charges “baseless” and claims Sheahan is “unfairly targeting Officer Peterson.”

    “This latest charge is a knee-jerk reaction,” Cummings said. “Stephen is being found guilty by association. This is the third time the department has tried to discipline or terminate Stephen.”

    Chief Sheahan would not comment on the matter as it is department policy to not discuss “ongoing personnel matters.”

    http://www.pioneerlocal.com/oakbrook/news/2671542,oak-brook-peterson-090210-s1.article

  101. It probably wasn’t “stainless” after he found out he lost the appeal to get out during the prosecutor’s appeal.

  102. “…Not many people would even mention that they sat for a visit, but thesensitivity attached is extreme. Drew Peterson has been called a narcissist and this would certainly confirm it. He deludes himself into thinking that he is of such high value that the recipients of this letter would actually be offended that he is forced to sit on a small, round stainless steel stool rather than a chair.

    That is so interesting and so amazing of what can come of this type of analysis! Everything fits perfectly! I’m impressed!

  103. I went much further with my own analysis of the letter. My conclusion is that Drew Peterson feels he deserves a simple wooden vintage electric chair.

  104. “I was taken from my family without being able to say goodbye to my kids with my kids being also taken into custody and turned over to The Department of Children and family Services. This process would be scary for an adult much less a four and five year old.

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

    Does this mean Drew always let his detainees say goodbye to their families and make arrangements for their children before he handcuffed them ??

  105. We were once wondering how much a police officer must do to be fired…

    I found a story of a police officer, Rex Hayes, who “from 1979 through 1999, amassed over 65 official misconduct complaints, including allegations that he cracked open a man’s skull causing permanent brain damage, broke a woman’s arm, and engaged in several severe physical beatings.
    Instead of disciplining Hayes or removing him from the police force, the City of Chicago defended him in 10 different lawsuits costing $2 million in settlements and damages awards. While he was eventually terminated from the CPD after 20 years, he was never criminally prosecuted for any of the crimes he committed.”

    http://www.ushrnetwork.org/files/ushrn/images/linkfiles/CERD/9_Police%20Brutality.pdf

    “Let Officer Hayes retire with the pension he deserves,” Cummings told the board. … and she called Hayes a “victim.”

  106. Wow, Cyrhla, that’s incredible.

    May I ask, though, where you found the quote “Let Officer Hayes retire…..?” I have not been able to find that quote in the link you provided, nor anywhere else online.

  107. This is how the system works according to an attorney:
    “Manasi, who has handled dozens of brutality cases, says she’s never seen an OPS penalty increased by the superintendent or the board. “The Police Board cuts the number of sustained cases in half,” says Manasi, “and the other half goes to legal arbitration, which then cuts that number by about 75 percent. Finally, after all of that, an officer can appeal the case to the circuit court. When it comes down to it, very few cases are ultimately sustained. In ten years, I’ve seen literally a handful of officers, maybe five, fired for excessive force.”

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/14/chicago/print.html

  108. I found it online through the Chicago Public Library, using my library card.

    ’98 choking complaint last straw for officer – Alleged throttling one of 23 claims since ’87
    Chicago Sun-Times – Saturday, June 29, 2002
    Author: Frank Main

    A Chicago police officer repeatedly accused of striking people with batons, choking them and pointing his gun at them over his 25-year career has been fired for allegedly throttling a South Side man.

    The Police Board voted this week to fire Officer Rex Hayes , who has cost the city at least $1 million in legal payouts because of excessive-force complaints against him.

    His dismissal was long overdue, said a civil rights lawyer who represented Hayes ‘ alleged victims in their lawsuits against the city.

    “This is a bittersweet victory,” said Amber Miller of the People’s Law Office. “So many people have been brutalized by this officer . He is a classic example of a ‘repeater’ officer . He should have been fired years ago.”

    At least 23 excessive force complaints were filed against Hayes between 1987 and 2000, Miller said.

    In the case that cost Hayes his job, he was accused of choking John Kurylo on April 2, 1998. Hayes and his partner responded to Kurylo’s house in the 13300 block of South Brandon on the Southeast Side after Kurylo thought he smelled natural gas and called 911.

    During the Police Board hearing, Hayes testified he ordered Kurylo into his house after firefighters said there was no gas leak–but Kurylo was belligerent and shouting profanities.

    Hayes , 50, said he was preparing to arrest Kurylo for drinking in a public way and disorderly conduct when Kurylo slammed the door. Hayes followed him into the house.

    The 4th District police officer, who tips the scales at 230 pounds, admitted grabbing the 150-pound Kurylo’s neck for eight to 10 seconds to control him during the arrest, but denied trying to choke him.

    Lee Ferron, an attorney representing the city in its attempt to fire Hayes , told the Police Board that photos taken a week later showed a handprint on Kurylo’s neck, indicating he was choked.

    Kurylo and his wife, Melissa, have received a settlement of $190,000 from the city, said Miller, one of their attorneys on the case.

    On Tuesday, the Police Board, which rules on disciplinary cases against officers , found Hayes guilty of bringing discredit on the department, of disrespect or maltreatment of a person, and of engaging in an unjustified verbal or physical altercation. The decision was made public Friday.

    A prior 1998 police department review failed to sustain any of the allegations Kurylo brought against Hayes . But the Office of Professional Standards reopened the case later that year after receiving a letter from civil rights attorney Mariel Nanasi demanding the department take a second look.

    Hayes ‘ attorney, Tamara Cummings, told the Police Board that the department’s reopening of the case was a “travesty” and she called Hayes a “victim.”

    “Mr. and Mrs. Kurylo have gotten their money. Let Officer Hayes retire with the pension he deserves,” Cummings told the board.

    Cummings said Friday she plans to meet with Hayes next week to discuss the likelihood of his appealing the board’s ruling.

    “We are very disappointed,” Cummings said. “He has been in one of the city’s hardest-working, roughest districts. It is not unusual he will be accused of things when he is making a lot of arrests. It doesn’t mean it’s true. People aren’t happy to be arrested.”

    Hayes has been suspended without pay since Police Supt. Terry Hillard moved to fire him on Feb. 1, 2001, and he has been working odd jobs to make ends meet, she said.

    Police spokesman David Bayless said he was pleased with the ruling.

    “This case demonstrated the superintendent’s desire to make sure that officers who engage in this type of activity are held accountable,” Bayless said.

    The city’s new contract with the Fraternal Order of Police allows the department to maintain records on complaints registered against wayward officers for seven years, instead of five. The move was intended to strengthen the department’s much-criticized disciplinary procedures.
    Section: NEWS
    Page: 2
    Index Terms: NEWS; POLICE LEGAL ; Rex Hayes excessive force police brutality lawsuits complaints dismissal firing
    Record Number: 0F4B86ACEB720DBA

  109. Well, whatever the situation or case is regarding Stephen Peterson, it is certainly reasonable for his attorney to defend him against the charges. This does, however, show that things aren’t always as they seem, for both sides.

    I think it is a little startling to read some of her comments in the Hayes case.

    She does seem to have a certain playbook she follows though, heh?

  110. Compared to Hayes, Stephen is an angel. LOL

    I cited the above as Cummings was involved and her wording is similar. She is the Union’s attorney so I am not surprised. I am much more worried how police officers’ misconducts are treated.
    Think about Drew and his relationship with a minor. Stacy’s brother was sent to prison for such a misdemeanour while Drew was said OK, no problem. Taking under consideration that Drew had inclination to minor girls in general (and I guess some officers in the BBPD knew about it), and Stacy was not the only exception (as he also molested Lisa and had more affairs), letting him go on was like letting a pedophile be a teacher of your child. Isn’t it what a certain officer called a profesional courtesy?

  111. Folks, remember to stay on point. Also, if you have an opinion about someone or something and you haven’t linked a source, please remember to express it as your opinion, i.e., “IMO.”

    Thanks.

  112. judgin :
    Will County Circuit Court Schedule
    http://willcountycircuitcourt.com/
    09L 000326 Estate of Kathleen Savio, Deceased wrongful death suit
    BRODSKY JOEL ALAN 9 13 10900 WCCA PETERSON DREW 09L 000326 CIVJ
    PETERSON DREW 9 13 10 WCCA 900 09L 000326 Case
    VARSEK LAWRENCE E. 9 13 10 900 WCCA SAVIO HENRY J 09L 000326 CIVJ
    SAVIO HENRY J 9 13 10 WCCA 900 09L 000326 Case

    Just a reminder.

  113. http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/

    1:09-cv-06746 Peterson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA HELOC
    Ronald A. Guzman, presiding
    Date filed: 10/26/2009
    Date of last filing: (closed 09/08/2010)
    09/08/2010 115 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman:
    Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not cure the defects
    noted by the Court in its April 29, 2010
    Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing plaintiff’s initial complaint.
    Therefore, the Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint [doc. no. 87] and terminates this case.
    Civil case terminated.

    Mailed notice by judge’s staff. (srb,) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

  114. Can we now expect another letter to the Media, this time about Chase unfairly targeting Drew and his children and a “hey Ron” address to Judge Guzman ?

  115. Seems strange there is no jailbird letter, lawyers’ vapor, media noise, PR press release, etc. regarding this case termination.

    It’s so new, maybe nobody else knows about it yet … except us at JC 😀

  116. Does anyone know if it was terminated with or without prejudice? Just curious to know if he can try to bring another lawsuit forward with a new argument that they decide to try to use.

  117. TAI, I believe whatever argument they would try to use, they can’t change the fact that Drew’s financial situation has changed (i.e.his income v. expenses for legal assistance; see the Memorandum). So as long as he does not find only pro-bono lawyers, this state of matters won’t change. And even if so, he must still pay fees for court proceedings and so on. It would mean Drew would have to find 2 in 1: a pro-bone lawyer and a sponsor ;).

    To my understanding, the case is over, but I guess we must sleep with one eye opened. 😉

  118. Oh – I agree with you Cyrhla – I was just wondering if they could if Brodsky and company convince Drew that it was money well spent.

  119. Looks like Chase has asked for a judgment and wants Drew to pay for their court costs. They filed it yesterday.

    [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

    The Court has ordered that Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and that the Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. recover costs from the Plaintiff.

    This action was decided by Judge Ronald A. Guzman on Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that final judgment is entered granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and dismissing this action with prejudice.

  120. Thanks Facs – the with prejudice part makes it final for them. I always thought that when you bring a suit like that forward and you lose that you are always stuck paying for the other person’s defense costs. They should get it IMO.

  121. At first I thought the judgment had been granted, but now I see Chase is only ‘proposing’ this judgement. All the judge has to do is sign on the dotted line…

    WHEREFORE, Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. respectfully requests that this Court enter an order directing the Clerk (i) to set forth in a separate document a judgment in favor of Chase and against Peterson and awarding Chase its costs in substantially the same form as the proposed judgment attached as Exhibit A; (ii) to enter that judgment; and (iii) for such further and different relief as this Court deems necessary and just.

    Date: September 14, 2010

  122. Once again, Peterson is getting what he paid for. But, he’s happy enough with his whole team that he wrote a letter to the Tribune expressing his glee, so tough! He’ll just have to keep writing those checks, and wondering what he’s getting in return.

Comments are closed.