GALENA, Ill. -- A discussion eight months in the making has finally worked its way into open court.
On Friday, Oct. 16, California dairyman A.J. Bos' attorneys argued that a Jo Daviess County judge froze operations at Bos' 1,400-acre facility near Nora based on testimony "unsupported by fact" and consisting of "speculation and conjecture."
The argument proved anything but new in the case pitting Bos against an environmentalist group, Helping Others Maintain Environmental Standards, or HOMES.
Bos' legal team filed these claims on Feb. 2 as part of a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction order, yet the discussion waited as the case bounced back and forth between state and federal courts in a venue battle that only recently resulted in the case being tossed back to the courthouse in Galena.
While the argument was a long time coming, it opened new wounds for the plaintiffs, said HOMES spokesman Matthew Alschuler.
"I just can't believe some of the stuff they put in their memorandum," he said. "It just does not make sense."
In October 2008, HOMES won a preliminary injunction hearing that stopped Bos from launching his dairy operation because the site could sit atop karst, an area filled with cracks that would allow water contamination.
The Bos memorandum said that conclusion was reached because of only one witness, Illinois State Geological Survey staff member Samuel Panno.
Bos' attorneys say in the memorandum that Panno is a "shill for the plaintiffs -- a believer in their cause and one who has used the cover of his job as a state employee to mislead the court." It went on to say that Panno "failed to perform tests and investigations that would absolve the site of his karst claims."
Specifically, the memorandum said, Panno should have completed on-site testing instead of coming to his conclusions based on studies around the area.
"My question is this: How was Panno supposed to do all of these on-site tests when he wasn't allowed on site?" Alschuler said. "All of the tests they recommend in this memorandum are very expensive, require a lot of time and require regular access to the site, which we have been denied. (This memorandum) is their last gasp, their last feeble attempt to get something dismissed when they know they don't have a good case."
Additionally, Alschuler scoffs at the idea of Panno being a "shill" that bends to HOMES' will.
"It was certainly not us who found him. He was recommended to us by both the Illinois Department of Agriculture and the Illinois Attorney General," he said.
Bos and his attorneys could not be reached for comment, and Panno cannot comment on the case.
More arguments are expected on Oct. 30, when the plaintiffs respond to Bos' claims. Arguments continue on Nov. 6 and a decision is expected to come at 1 p.m. on Nov. 10.
