6. THE DEFENDENTS COVERED AND REMOVED PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS
LOGOS AND REPEATED POLITICAL STATEMENTS ON BUILDING LOCATED AT
16658 SOUTH ASHLAND AVENUE, MARKHAM, ILLINOIS FOR MORE THAN 12
MONTHS. THE DEFENDANT’S HARASSMENT FURTHER CONTINUED WHEN
THE CITY OF MARKHAM USED GRAY PAINT TO COVER CUSTOMIZED
BUSINESS LOGOS AND POLITICAL VIEWS. AFTER THE PLAINTIFF PAINTED
HIS POLITICAL VIEWS ON HIS BUILDING AGAIN THE CITY CAME OUT A
SECOND AND THIRD TIME USING BLACK PAINT.

7. THE CITY OF MARKHAM FURTHER HARASSED PLAINTIFF WHILE HE WAS
ON HIS PROPERTY WHEN ALDERMAN DAVID WEBB OF THE 4TH WARD STEPPED
OUT OF HIS CAR AND ACCUSED THE PLAINTIFF OF SLANDER. THE ALDERMAN
CALLED THE MARKHAM POLICE AND HAD SIX MARKHAM POLICE OFFICERS
COME OUT WITHIN MINUTES TO ARREST THE PLAINTIFF, HOWEVER NO
ARREST WAS MADE AT THAT TIME.

8. IHAVE WITNESSED THE PLAINTIFF’S LOSS OF MENTAL HEALTH DUE TO
STRESS, DEPRESSION, PHYSICAL HEALTH, SEXUAL DESIRE, LOSS OF ENERGY
AND OPTIMISTIC OUTLOOK ON LIFE.

9. PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK AND ENDURED OPEN HEART
SURGERY IN SEPTEMBER 2000.

10. OUT OF FEAR FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND MYSELLF, I AVOID TRAVELING
THROUGH MARKHAM AND SHOPPING AT STORES I ONCE FRENQUENT BECAUSE I
DO NOT FEEL SAFE AS TO WHAT THE POLICE AND OFFICIALS IN THE CITY MIGHT
DO TO CAUSE US FURTHER HARM. IT IS EMOTIONALLY SAD TO MY HUSBAND
AND ME BECAUSE I GREW UP IN MARKHAM. MY FATHER HAD A BUSINESS IN
MARKHAM FOR OVER 35 YEARS UNTIL HIS DEATH IN 1995. HE WAS THE FIRST
AFRICAN-AMERICAN ALDERMAN ELECTED IN THE CITY OF MARKHAM SERVING
2.



The memory of Civil Rights Violations and to remind the Plaintiff of his living conditions of
dehumanization events during the era of Jim Crow. Plaintiff is injured in his person and
property, or deprived of having and exercising any rights or privileges as a citizen of the

United States. Hereto [Exhibit D] Psychiatric Review.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff demands Judgment in restitution for violations of his Constitutional and Civil
Rights in the amount of: TEN MILLION DOLLARS.

Plaintiff demands Judgment for Punitive Damages in the amount of: TEN MILLION
DOLLARS.

Respectfully submitted

C er H. ot

54 Deerpath Rd.
Matteson, Illinois 60443
708-720-9273

| , certify that | am the Plaintiff in the above
action. The allegation in this complaint are true.

Truth is found only when dedicated men are free to inquire after it. If we refuse to fight for dignity
of truth we have substituted expediency for justice.



os Page 3.

Mayor Evans Miller, Police Commissioner Ray Ashley, Police Chief
Latimore, Attorney Steve Miller and Alderman David Webb of the
First Ward where Club Mycasa is located conspired to destroy my
rights to operate a business in Markham by not providing adequate
police protection to patrons and holding me severely and solely
responsible for the shooting incidents that took place outside my
business establishment in the parking lot after closing and whether
they were customers or not. They were aware of the problems and did
nothing to provide prevention except the single action, of closing
me down. They repeatedly refused to provide police presence at
closing time when they were made aware of the need.

At one City Hall Meeting in July, 1999, Attorney Steve Miller boasted
about the city being in partnership with all the businesses in Markham.

During Attorney Steve Miller's closing arguements at my final day of
Liquor hearings in July, 1999 he publically stated that he wanted

Club Mycasa to be a DARK GHOST CORNER and that is exactly what it is
today. It was also recorded on the city tape recorder and heard by
everyone present at the hearing.

Respectfully,

Lgl bl bit!

#eonard H. Garrett

54 DEERPATH ROAD
MATTESON, IL 60443

PHONE: (708) 720-9274
FAX: (708) 720-9273



OHA PSYCHIATRIC REVIEW TECHNIQUE FORM

NAME: Leonard H. Garrett SSN: 353-42-6098

Assessment is for: Current Evaluation

Senior Yee Signature Date
ead £ Kapha AUG 1-8 2020
I. MEDICAL! sdmmary
A. Medical Disposition(s): “RFC Assessment Necessary

(i.e., a Severe impairment is
present which does not meet or
equal a listed impairment)

B. Based Upon Category (ies): 12.04
Ir. Reviewer's Notes (Does not apply to OHA)
TIL. DOCUMENTATION OF FACTORS THAT EVIDENCE THE DISORDER

{Evaluation of the existence of a sidan or symptom
CLUSTER or SYNDROME for the Listed Disorder.)

PRESENT ABSENT

{) {] A. 12.02 Organic Mental Disorders

() () B. 12.03 Schizophrenic, Paranoid
and other Psychotic
Disorders

(x) fj] oe, 12.04 Affective Disorders

(3 1} ob. 12,05 Mental Retardation and
Autism

{) {) &£. 12.06 Anxiety Related Disorders

0) Cy]oF. 12.07 Somatoform Disorders

{) () G. 12.08 Personality Disorders

{] {] &. 12.09 Substance Addiction
Disorders

c. 12.04 affective Disorders - Disturbance of mood,

accompanied by a full or partial manic or depressive
syndrome, as evidenced by at least one of the following:

PRESENT-ABSENT-INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

1. [x] (1) £1] Depressive syndrome characterized by at
least four of the following:
a. { ] Anhedonia or pervasive loss of

interest in almost all
activities, or

b. [ ] Appetite disturbance with
change in weight, or
c. [x] Sleep disturbance, or
~ ,
eo } oe ye ly
Ethily; +, hoo
MAR @6 2883 15:49 ee, page.20

7
a


MARKHAM POLICE DEPT.

Dear Mr. Garrett

This letter is to inform you that your portable sign from Mi Casa
Lounge has been towed by Stat Towing to their tow yard located at
16510 Crawford. The sign was towed in violation of the local City
Ordinance. If you would like to retrieve this sign please contact Bill

Schmidt at 708 333-8200, or contact Officer Spivey at 708 331-2171.

Thank you

. Spivey, #527
4 Ao 4,

No DATE om LET. Sie WAS Punmnnd Ly
Qc! D 10-9 -294 Dusraicep pv PINEMooT
: RIPPED ut:

30 Am. BY fe ema anon
Regurm NIALL Siew we? monpaya M

fost manic ENVELOPE or 7 !9-49

Armani


t . ve :
’ * USE ONLY FOR CLASS "C" MISDEMEANORS AND ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS (4/10/95) CCMD 0224

INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTION OF DEFENDANT

vam Leonard Garrett Alias
Residence roa Deer tath Matleson Ju bor43

City/Town State Zip
Sex Race Weight | Height | D.O.B. | Age | Complexion Build Q Yes O No
M BLY laos loco Gale] 6/ {Mar MBr | arrestee bad been using AlcoholDrugs
6th

MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT.......... DISTRICT

ry of Marchasa Plaintiff ~
Leonar a Cor vet Defendant

C

‘omplainant's Name Printed or, Typed)
The Circuit Court of Cook County and states that Leonard Gay rett Fee eee eee eee ene ene tees

(defendant)
16658 S. Ashland Markham,Cook County,I11

STATE OF ILLINOIS
COOK COUNTY ss

|

AOIC CODE

being.first duly sworn, ..
complaint by him/her subscribed and that the same is true.

Subscribed and sworn to before me

Ihave examined the above complaint and the person presenting the same and have heard evidence thereon, and am satisfied that there
is probable cause for filing same. Leave is given to file said complaint.

Summons issued, Judge : re
“or ° ( Zirh sb: +
Warrant Issued, Bail set at, .. 6... sss ceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeteneel 4
or ‘
Bail set ate... . 0. cc ccc eeeecceceeeneeet sees eneeeenes a

AURELIA PUCINSKI. CLERX OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Leonard Garrett
Plaintiff
Vs. No. 02-C-5437
Judge Zagel

The City of Markham

d/b/a A Municipal Corp.

Defendants
AFFIDAVIT

1, Leonard Garrett,at the age of twenty bought my first house located at 3360
Mangolia Dr. Markham Il.
Out of fear of the color of law in the City of Markham, | am afraid to enter the city,
for fear of what the color of law has done already or what they are capable of doing.
| feel unsafe to visit, or travel through the city , where my Farther-in —law was
elected one of the first black Alderman.
This is where | lived for over ten years where my wife grew up.
Where I bought a business, and was dehumanized, intimidated, harassed
Threatened and deprived of any rights all inflicted upon “under the color of law’.
The Defendants retumed me back in time to JIM CROW before Dr. King proved to

the world that we as black people were HUMAN BEINGS.

Further Affiant sayeth not, Leonard Garrett- 54 iis Rd. Matt I. 6044 ¢
Subscribed and sworn before ? 0 Xe

"Leonard eared §

Wee Weer =\_,2003

NOTARY PUBLIC



16313 KEDZIE PARKWAY + MARKHAM, ILLINOIS + 60426

Evans R. Miller Theresa M. Cannon Otto M. Bradtord
Mayor City Clerk City Treasurer

July 28,2000

Mr. Garrett

Re: 167th & Ashland

Dear Mr. Garrett.

There was no defacement of your building after failing to
reach you to have you clean up your building & grounds.The
Public Works Department cut and removed weeds and covered
graffiti,& foul language that was on the building. Also a
lein was placed on the property for the cost of cleaning up
the property.

Sincerely,

aml Eo Gea

Daniel E. Costello
Superintendent of Publics Works

 Biibit ral Au
——~ pag a

City of Markham CREE”


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Leonard Garrett sn
Plaintiff JUDGE ZAGEL"
No: 1:02C 5437

Vs
The City of Markham, lll. d/b/a A
Muncipial Corp.
Defendant

PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO:FRCP. Pro 15(a)[ FRCP-Rule 21.]

Now comes the Plaintiff , Leonard Garrett, a born citizen of the United States of

America and inhabitant of Cook County illinois all within the territory of the Untied

States, now here appearing and Demand Judgment for relief before this Honorable Court
herein, and invokes the sovereignty of the Untied States Constitution. Plaintiff brings civil
action against the Defendant, Authority for his suit is given to this court under the

[ 1’Amendment ,Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth, Amendment, Fourteenth section *1 ]
[USC Title 42~1983>(21) ], [ USC Title 18~241] guaranteed by The United States

Constitution.

1. Defendant, a Municipal Corp. are those which have their object the government of a
portion of the state and with a portion of political power; “acting under the color of law’
violated and denied the Plaintiff's Rights.

Defendant, and Agents were at all times material to this complaint . This suit against the
Defendant is brought under the “expressively authorized” exception of [ 42 USC-
1983(21) to 28 USC-2283] anti- injunction provisions for equitable relief. The

Defendant is being sued for willful participation “acting under color of law’

proceeding to victimized and dehumanized the Plaintiff.

1.



2. Difficulties in Maintaining Social Functioning:

1e[ ] Slight[{ ] Moderate!x] Marked*«{ ] Extreme[{ ] Insuff Evid{ ]

3. Deficiencies of Concentration, Persistence or Pace Resulting in Failure
to Complete Tasks in a Timely Manner (in work settings or elsewhere) :

ver{ } Seldom[ ] Often[ ] Frequent*(x] Constant[ ] Insuff Evid{ ]

4. Episodes of Deterioration or Decompensation in Work or Work-Like
Settings Which Cause the Individual to Withdraw from that Situation or
to Experience Exacerbation of Signs and Symptoms (which may Include
Deterioration of Adaptive Behaviors):

rer{ ] Once/Twice[x] Repeated*(3+)( ] Continual{ ) Insuff Evid{ }

2gree Of limitation that satisfies the Listings: Extreme, Constant and
itinual also satisfy that requirement.

B. Summary of Functional Limitation Rating for "B" Criteria

NO. OF FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS MANIFESTED AT THE LISTING LEVEL: [1]

(The number must be at least 2 to satisfy the requirements of paragraph B in
Listings 12.02, 12.03, 12.04 and 12.06 and paragraph D in 12.05; and at least
3 to satisfy the requirements in paragraph B in Listings 12.07 and 12.08.)

PAGE. 22
MAR G6 2883 15:48



d. {] Psychomotor agitation or
retardation, or

e. (x] Decreased energy,. or

£. {x] Feelings of guilt or
worthlessness, or

(x] Difficulty concentrating or

thinking, or

h. [x] Thoughts of suicide, or

i. (x] Hallucinations, delusions or
paranoid thinking

2. {1 £1 Manic syndrome characterized by at least

three of the following:
Hyperactivity, or
Pressures of speech, or
Flight of ideas, or
Inflated self-esteem, or
Decreased need for sleep, or
Easy distractibility, or
Involvement in activities that
have a high probability of
painful consequences which are
not recognized, or
h. ( } Hallucinations, delusions or
paranoid thinking
3. (1 () {1 Bipolar syndrome with a history of
episodic periods manifested by the full
symptomatic picture of both manic and
depressive syndromes (and currently
characterized by either or both

uneaaow

syndromes)
4. {1 €1 € 1 Other
Vv. RATING OF IMPAIRMENT SEVERITY

A. $B" CRITERIA OF THE LISTINGS

THE FOLLOWING FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS (WHICH APPLY TO PARAGRAPH B OF LISTINGS
12.02-12.04 AND 12.06-12.08 AND PARAGRAPH D OF 12.05) EXIST AS A RESULT OF
THE INDIVIDUAL'S MENTAL DISORDER(S) .

NOTE: ITEMS 3 AND 4 BELOW ARE MORE THAN MEASURES OF FREQUENCY. DURATION
AND EFFECTS OF THE DEFICIENCIES (ITEM 3) OR EPISODES (ITEM 4) ARE
DISCUSSED IN THE DECISION.

Listing(s) under which the items below are being rated: 12.04

FUNCTIONAL LIMITATION AND DEGREE OF LIMITATION

1. Restrictions of Activities of Daily Living:
None{ ] Slight( ] Moderate[x) Marked*{ ) Extreme[{ ] Insuff Evid[ ]
MAR @6 2803 15:49 pane 31

Se


ENTERPRISES, INC,

CERTIFIED NO. P 438 191 2

eo
tor

July 24, 2000

Department of Public Works
City Of Markham

16313 S. Kedzie Parkway
Markham, Illinois 60426

Dear Sir:
I am requesting who authorized the defacement of the building

located at 16658 S. Ashland, formally known as Club Mycasa on
Wednesday, July 17, 2000.

I am expecting an immediate response. Thank you!

Sincerely

LEONARD GARRETT
ce: Mayor Evans Miller

LHG:bg



COUNT Hil
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

All of the above actions by the Defendant agents display intentional and calculated by
them to cause extreme emotional distress to the Plaintiff, or alternatively.

The Mayor conspired with Defendants and others to interfere and interrupt the Plaintiff's
rights.

The Defendant repeated illegal closures and hearings brought against the Plaintiff for
what happens outside the Plaintiffs business, after closing.

The Defendant actions “under the color of law’ have been direct at punishing and
destroying the Plaintiff for not yielding to their demands.

The Defendant agent attorney Steve Miller ordered the Property closed and to be a
“DARK GHOST CORNER’. On or about June 19,1999

Defendant's intimidations and a lien placed on Plaintiff's property “for the cost of a clean
up” and without DUE PROCESS. Hereto as [ Exhibit C]

INJURY TO PLAINTIFF

1. By nature of their acceptance of authority delegated to them by the State of Illinois,
all Defendant violations of the Plaintiffs Constitutional and Civil Rights Act Title

[42, USC~1983(21) ] >[Title 18 USC~241]-42 USC sec. 1985 chpt. 21-CIVIL RIGHTS]
First, Fourth, Fourteenth Amendments. Those violations acting “under the color of law’. .
Plaintiff suffered and to this date is suffering cause by the actions of the Defendant,

in person and property business credit, personal credit, denied “ the right to make a
living ” suppression and dehumanized causing the Plaintiff extreme severe depression,
affective disorders, and high amounts of emotional stress causing one heart attack,and

open heart surgery.



TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS. WE PURCHASED OUR FIRST HOME IN MARKHAM AS
YOUNG ADULTS AND RAISED OUR TWO CHILDREN DURING THEIR FIRST 12
YEARS. I HAVE AUNTS AND COUSINS STILL LIVING IN MARKHAM BUT IDO NOT
VISIT THEM AT THEIR HOMES BECAUSE I FEAR BEING IN MARKHAM FOR ANY
REASON AND AT ANY TIME.

THESE ARE MY TRUE STATEMENTS AND FACTS OF EVENTS THAT HAVE
OCCURRED.

BETT ; f GARRETT

54 DEERPATH RD.
MATTESON, IL. 60443
708-720-9273

THIS DAY OF April Hs , 2003

NOTARY PUBLIC

prnnnnnnn
"OFFICIAL SEAL"
Annette Harris
Notary Public, State of Illinois
My Commission Exp. 10/29/2005
Leman nen

(3)



Page 2.

Decision which was to revoke the liquor license for serving a minor,
It was hearsay testimony which was never proven and the unfortunate

death of a 19 year o1d shot by a bullet fired several houses from
the club was never mentioned. All of these closing took place
within an eight month period.

It was apparent long before the final incident athat more police
presence was needed.

The Mayor had said at one hearing, you take care of the inside and
they would take care of the outside. Then, at a later hearing he
denied making that statement. It was recorded on their city tape
recorder and heard by several people.

Other bars in Markham have had fights, shootings and deaths inside
and outside the premises and were not closed and remain open. The
Mayor has experience violence at his place of business, The Markham
Skating Ring owned by him and his son, Attorney Steve Miller. They
were never closed down or received-the special unfair treatment we
have experienced and endured.

After my license was revoked, I decided to operate the Business without
liquor and put "OPENING SOON" on my permanent bill board sign. Two
weeks later the city had my sign towed without notifying me. The

sign was extracted from the cement pavement leaving holes where the
pipe legs, spikes, nuts and bolts were installed. Three months went

by without a call, letter or any acknowledgement that my signed was
towed.

On Sunday, October 2, 1999 Club Mycasa had a suspicious fire with severe
damage inside. There was nothing on to cause a fire. The Markham Fire
Department responded quickly and prevented a total loss but the Markham
Police Department did not notify me of the fire, or were they present
when my wife and I arrived at the scene.

We were notified by a neighbor, hours later. However, the Tobacco,
Alcohol and Fire Arms and the FBI were present. I was glad to see them
to make sure things would be above board and with some balance and check.

After I mentioned to the FBI and Tobacco People about the malicious act
by ‘the city to remove my sign, I received a letter with no date from
Officer Spivak regarding the sign. It stated the mobile sign was a
violation of city ordinances. The sign was an electrical sign firmly
cemented into the pavement and had been there for two years.

A second letter arrived a month later saying the sign could be obtained

at the towing company. The daily storage charged had accrued to
$1,700.00. The sign cost $350.00 and an additinal $150.00 to electrically
wire and permanently install into the cement pavement. Other similar
signs are still located in the city of Markham.and some have been there
before my sign and remain in tact to date.


6. Defendant's Police Officers ’acting under the color of law’ trespassed, to
interrupt and with malice to deprive the Plaintiff of a lively hood to seize his business
documents without WARRANT or DUE PROCESS repeated violations from on or about
October 14,1998 thru on or about June 20, 1999.

7. Sgt. Wright “acting under the color of law” trespassed and entered Plaintiff's
business, to intimidate and make threats of arrest and ordered the Plaintiff and his
family and friends off the Plaintiff's property, or go to jail.

8. Defendant acting “under the color of law’ conspired to trespass do and did
damages with malice to Plaintiffs property and seized a stationary electrical sign
without [Due Process] on or about July 19, 1999.Hereto as [Exhibit B] a undated

letter Plaintiff received October 9, 1999, from Markham Police Dept.

COUNT It

DEFENDANTS VIOLATES PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDMENT

9 Defendant's public works dept. acting “under the color of law’ without DUE
PROCESS repeated to trespass to do and did damages by painting over business logos,
freedom of speech and political views. From July 17,2000 through on or about May 8,
2001.

10. On or about October 7, 2000 Alderman David Webb trespassed on Plaintiff's
property with six cars of Markham’s Police Officers “acting under the color of law’ with
malice to intimidate and threats to arrest Plaintiff's for exercising his First Amendment

Right and expression political views.



2. Defendant knowledge of their elected officials, agents and sworn Officers of Law
wrongs and conspiracy, to interfere with Plaintiffs civil rights, began on or about
October 7,1998 thru on or about May 8, 2001. And having the power to prevent or aid in
preventing the same, neglected or refused to do that which they by reasonable diligence

could have prevented. Pursuant to:[ 42 USC~1985 ].

CAUSE OF ACTION
COUNT!

DEFENDANTS VIOLATES PLAINTIFF’S- FOURTH -FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
SECTION (1) AND TITLE 18 USC~241 AND TILLE 42, USC~1983 & HARRASMENT
AND INTIMDATION

3 On or about October 7, 1998, Plaintiff's 911 call for a disturbance outside of

his place of business, Sgt. Tyler, a Markham’s Police “acting under the color of law”
arrived and denied Plaintiffs “equal share of law’ and protection. And was denied the
presence of Police Officers, order by Sgt. Tyler’ and from that day on.

4, On or about October 14, 1998 Sgt. Tyler, acting ‘under the color of law’ in
disguise as Markham Police Officer Supervisor. Leaded Markham Police Officers in an
illegal raid to interrupt Plaintiff's business and removed him from his property and seized
document, without WARRANT or [ Due Process]. Hereto as [Exhibit A] CLASS “C’
COMPLAINT signed by Sgt. Wright who was not present at the illegal arrest and the

Defendant know that Sgt. Tyler is longer employed by The City of Markham Police Dept

5. Sgt. Tyler, acting “under the color of law” in disguised to deprive, with intent or
hinder and to interrupt the Plaintiff's lively hood free exercise or enjoyment of any rights
or privileges “order the Plaintiffs business close and ordered every one to get out or go

to jail” on or about October 14, 1998.



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LEONARD GARRETT
PLAINTIFF NO. 02 C 5437
vs
THE CITY OF MARKHAM, IL d/b/a
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT
1. ITHAVE KNOWN THE PLAINTIFF FOR 37 YEARS, WHERE HE WAS THE OWNER
OF OTHER BUSINESSES, THREE OF WHICH WAS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF

MARKHAM, ILLINOIS AND THE OTHER IN MATTESON, ILLINOIS.

2. PLAINTIFF WAS ARRESTED AND HANDCUFFED IN THE PRESENCE OF STAFF
AND CUSTOMERS IN OCTOBER 1998.

3. PLAINTIFF REPEATLY ASKED FOR POLICE PRESENCE AT 16658 SOUTH
ASHLAND AVENUE AND WAS DENIED POLICE PRESENCE AT CLOSING WHICH
WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY DEFERRED DISTURBANCES.

4. THERE WERE REPEATED ILLEGAL CLOSINGS BY THE CITY OF MARKHAM.

5. ACOMMERCIAL ELECTRIC SIGN HAD BEEN INSTALLED IN PAVEMENT FOR

TWO YEARS PRIOR BUT PULLED OFF ITS PERMANENT STAND WITHOUT NOTICE,
DUE PROCESS OR EXPLANATION BY THE CITY OF MARKHAM.

0)



January 30, 2000

Public Intergrity Unit
2650 S. California
Chicago, IL 60608

Dear Sir or Madame:

I applied for a business liquor license through Mayor Evans Miller,
Liquor Commissioner for the City of Markham in 1996.

During an interview Mayor Miller told me if I had any problems with
the Police Department, I should take my complaints to the Police
Chief Latimore.

After a year of operating Club Mycasa, It had the appearance of
Business success due to the weekly crowd of customers. I was
approached by Sargent Tyler for cash to secure police protection.
I adamently refused to entertain his proposition and immediately
complained to the Chief of Police not knowing they were in full
agreement, including the Mayor.

Since that time I have been severely handled in my Club Mycasa
Night Club Business. Police were slow to respond to club
disturbances, no visability of police at closing time caused
lots of fights and shootings to intensify.

I increased security inside and out, installed extra lighting on
the parking lot and posted signs. Disturbances reduced drastically
inside but problems on the parking lot continued. I went to Police
Chief Latimore requesting more police protection for the parking
lot, knowing police presence would deter a lot of the parking lot
violence. Customers and non customers would get in their cars and

leave instead of continuing to party in the parking lot after closing.

Officers told me they were not allowed to patrol and protect Ciub
Mycasa by orders from their superiors, Sargent Tyler, especially.

It seems that refusing to pay $750 per week and openly complaining
target me to be a loud mouth and caused me not to operate a legal
business in Markham and made me an example to other bar owners.

The Mayor would close my business down after each incident, take my
license from the premises, send flyers and petitions out to the
neighborhood and conduct a public hearing. No one else received
such systematic treatment. The first time, one week for the
hearing date and three days after the hearing. The second closing
one week for a hearing date and two weeks after the hearing. The
third closing, one week for the hearing date and three weeks after
the hearing. The fourth time my license was not removed from the
premises, one week for the hearing date, two weeks for the written