Hello Eye on Lake County,

A Grant Assessor’s letter you have posted on your website dated April 24, 2015 contains a gross misrepresentation of the truth.  The letter in my opinion appears to be yet another pathetic attempt from this Office to mislead people and cover up its highly questionable, historical actions regarding private Wooster Lake properties.

The Assessor’s posted letter is an attempted justification for her November 11, 2014 submittal of a Grant-typed document now opining Wooster Lake properties are not restricted, a Grant Assessor opinion drafted and submitted in multiple tax appeal hearings.   That not-restricted status now claimed in hearings by the Grant Assessor is also in part that Office’s basis for its questionable actions regarding comparable properties, as presented in multiple hearings of Wooster Lake properties.

The Grant Assessor wrote in her letter:

?i>In June 2014, the property owner made us aware that he had won in court and sent us documentation confirming that Wooster Lake is not restricted (see documents provided).?/span>

The Assessor claims a property owner gave her this official non-restricted status.

The Assessor is referring to an Order from June 2014 case in small claims court of Lake County, case #13SC5244, www.lakecountyeye.com/2014/06/in-wake-of-news-judgement-day.html where my wife and I were merely awarded a monetary sum by the Honorable Judge Simonian of that court.  Nowhere in that case is the judge’s ruling or opinion of any kind on the validity or invalidity of the multiple recordings of restrictions of Wooster Lake properties found at the Recorder’s Office.  No opinion from the judge at all in regards to restrictive status.  Nothing.  We didn’t even get that opinion verbally from the Honorable Judge Simonian.  In fact, during the court proceedings we were told the small claims judge of that court could not legally provide anything other than a monetary award, by law. 

Regardless, one can plainly see on this court order there is no such judge’s opinion towards the restrictive status of Wooster Lake properties.

Some of the biggest liars in public office mix lies in with some truths.  It is true I provided to the Assessor a copy of this small claims Order, as well as other documents, confronting her of a problem with local ordinances and covenants & restrictions, where evidence indicates it involves her Grant Office.  I also later provided to the Assessor the opinions from the State’s Attorney’s Office, provided since May 2014 as they became available, specifically that a judge is the only one who can validate or invalidate the multiple recordings of restrictions of Wooster Lake, recorded at the Recorder’s Office.  A specific court order was/is necessary, not just some small claims monetary award I gave her.  The Assessor fails to mention any of this pertinent information in her letter.

In other words, contrary to what the Assessor is shoveling to you and readers of your articles, I never provided any judge’s opinion that Wooster Lake properties are restricted or not restricted.  I don’t even have that judge’s opinion.  I only have my own opinion, the opinion of the Sheriff’s Department, and the opinion of the IDNR’s, which they provided in writing.  I merely highlighted to the Assessor there are still today multiple recordings of restrictions recorded by others at the Recorder’s Office and many who question the intent and veracity of those recordings still today being disseminated from the Recorder’s Office.

At her choosing, the Assessor has since chosen to draft and submit that new Grant document claiming Wooster Lake properties are not restricted, apparently pretending to invalidate the several still-being-disseminated-from-the-Recorder’s-Office recordings of restrictions, using that opinion to build that Office’s latest scheme with questionable comparable properties during tax appeal hearings, again - to my knowledge - all without a judge’s opinion towards the restrictive status of Wooster Lake properties. All conflicting with what the State’s Attorney has been stating is absolutely required to legally address this ongoing dispute.

If the Grant Assessor does have this required, judge’s opinion that the Wooster Lake restriction-recordings are valid or invalid, a judge’s opinion she claims to have, I invite her to share a copy of that judge’s opinion.  For the Circuit Court of Lake County as of last week has informed me there is no such ruling either already ordered by a judge or even pending in any Lake County court. 

If the Assessor can not produce this required judge’s opinion, then she can begin to apologize for her Office’s historical actions with Wooster Lake properties.


Thank You,

Kirk Denz

Skechers D Lites Nike Roshe Run Adidas NMD Schuhe Nike Sock Dart Kids Saucony 24 Kilates Shoes UA Curry Basketball Shoes Online Adidas Tubular Suede Herren Nike Air Max 2017 Saucony Grid 9000 Adidas Tubular Viral Women MBT Shoes Adidas Superstar Shoes Nike Classic Cortez Kids Adidas Superstar Shoes Adidas Originals By NIGO Shoes Adidas Originals Stan Smith Adidas Originals Stan Smith W Adidas Neo Shoes Nike KD 9 Shoes Adidas Yeezy Boost