General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
For Shame

From the Chicago Dispatcher, February 2009

From the Editor's Desk
For Shame
An update in the saga of Artur Shehu ("Shehu Saga" CD Nov. '08)

By: Jonathan Bullington

Back in November, I wrote an article entitled “Shehu Saga.” Before I continue, a quick recap:

Chicago cabdriver and medallion owner Artur Shehu, believed by police to have killed his parents in their Villa Park home, was later found floating in Lake Michigan with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. His sister and sole surviving family member Lindita Hoxha was supposed to receive roughly $100,000 in excess proceeds from the sale of Shehu's medallion. But first she had to fight off the city of Chicago, which sought to take that money by seeking to posthumously revoke Shehu's medallion.

On Tuesday, Feb. 3, I went to 400 W. Superior - room 106 - for a 10:30 a.m. hearing that would decide whether Shehu's medallion would be revoked. At 6:30 p.m., I walked out of 400 W. Superior having just watched the fate of one medallion - and, for that matter, my faith in Chicago - being fiercely contested for eight hours in a quintessential battle of David vs. Goliath.

Now I know the David-v-Goliath analogy has been made many times, and I know people have used it in situations where it's not called for, but I assure you there is no more fitting description that can be made of what took place on Feb. 3. On one side we had the estate of Artur Shehu, represented by attorney Robert Motta. On the other side: the city of Chicago with its representative, the former Department of Consumer Services (DCS). I think you know who is who.

Whereas in the Bible, David and Goliath meet on a neutral battlefield, in our story, David had to fight in Goliath's house and by Goliath's rules. That's what 400 W. Superior is to the city, its house. In it, Chicago has the ultimate home-field advantage. The place is a finely tuned machine that runs more like a shakedown operation than a hallowed hall of justice. You walk in, they tell you to take the deal. If you don't, you pay - big.

Even a highly esteemed and experienced trial attorney like Mr. Motta is no match for the formidable duo of city attorney and administrative law officer. The city, through DCS attorney Rupal Bapat, sought revocation of Shehu's medallion on three charges
1. Principle place of business not in Chicago
2. Misrepresentation on renewal application
3. Failure to timely renew license

Bapat argued that Shehu Corp. (Artur Shehu being sole shareholder, president and registered agent) failed to renew medallion 3638 by the February deadline. Shehu listed his place of business at 5208 N. Leavitt, 3rd Floor. Yet DCS found out he also purchased property in Villa Park (the house his parents lived in where they were found murdered) on Sept. 12, 2006. Eighteen days later Shehu moved out of 5208 N. Leavitt, according to DCS documents obtained from the property manager. Therefore, the city concluded that Shehu abandoned his principle place of business and, as such, also misrepresented his business address on renewal applications. This was the evidence they had: a returned security deposit check and the sworn affidavit of a property manager employee saying Shehu had moved. Did they think he could have still used the Leavitt place for business, maybe leasing it to a friend? They didn't know and they didn't care. The medallion had to be revoked and, as for the $100,000, I guess the city would have to take that as new owner of the medallion.

Mr. Motta gave the city all it could handle, stalking back and forth like a caged puma. He exuded all his qualities as a well-qualified and well-paid attorney, even though his work in this case is basically pro-bono. Sometimes combative, other times conciliatory, Motta clearly showed himself to be a serious trial lawyer whose utter exasperation for the administrative hearing process could only be stifled for so long.

Regarding the license renewal, he argued that Shehu missed the renewal deadline on a count of being dead on Jan. 7, 2008, one month before the February deadline. He even called Det. Lt. Michael Lay of the Villa Park Police Department to testify as to the accuracy of that date. How can a dead man renew a medallion? Didn't matter to the city.

“Just because he died, the corporation doesn't die. The corporation was still in good standing,” Bapat said during her closing argument. So was the city expecting Mrs. Hoxha to take time away from grieving the shocking loss of her parents and brother to stop by Ogden Avenue and renew her brother's medallion? Does Ms. Bapat think it's acceptable to effectively fine someone $100,000 for failing to do that? Apparently so - unless the city requires all corporations to have more than one officer.

As for the charges relating to his business address, Mr. Motta again fought hard to explain to the hearing officer, Miss Carol Chavez, that the city really didn't have any concrete evidence that Shehu didn't maintain his business in Chicago. He tried to tell her that people can work in buildings without living in them. He made DCS Deputy Commissioner Shellie Riedle admit her department didn't have any returned mail sent to 5208 N. Leavitt. He made her say that DCS mailed Shehu’s 2007 renewal packet to 5208 N. Leavitt, that it wasn't returned, and that he renewed his medallion before the 2007 deadline. This all showed, Mr. Motta argued, that Shehu was receiving mail there and was maintaining a place of business there.

He continued on, arguing he had reason to believe that the man who took over Shehu's lease at 5208 N. Leavitt was connected with Shehu. Samair Mullai, as Mr. Motta identified, listed Shehu as a friend on his lease application and was also a cabdriver. Yet unfortunately, Mr. Motta had been unable to find Mr. Mullai. As such, he requested at the last hearing and this hearing that a subpoena be issued for Mullai. But Ms. Chavez would hear nothing of it, denying his request because Mr. Motta was merely “speculating” and because there wasn't enough evidence to support issuing a subpoena.

Not enough evidence? This is two-thirds of the city's case. If Mullai were to testify that Shehu maintained business in Chicago, two-thirds of the case is tossed, we learn people can work in places without living in them, and all that remains is a dead man who missed renewal - on account of being dead.

Mr. Motta tried to have the Leavitt building's management company subpoenaed, stating the company would not share any information with him and would not testify unless issued a subpoena. Again Mr. Motta argued this information was crucial to mounting a fair defense and again Mr. Motta was denied for “speculating.” Funny, anything the city said was taken as fact, not speculation. The city wasn't speculating Shehu didn't keep his place of business in Chicago, the city knew it, and apparently so did the hearing officer. Mr. Motta admonished Ms. Bapat for choosing to submit a paper testimony from a management company employee instead of bringing that employee in for testimony, claiming she did so on purpose to hide evidence and block his ability to question any witness. Ms. Chavez coldly reminded him that “the city is not obligated to produce a witness.”

Mr. Motta even tried to claim his client's due process rights were violated. He told Ms. Chavez the city's complaint was filed eight months after Shehu's death. He said neither he nor Mrs. Hoxha had received service of the city's complaints and only found out about them when filing a motion in DuPage County Court. He argued that nothing in Chicago's Municipal Code authorizes DCS to promulgate rules calling for a forfeiture of excess proceeds of revoked medallions or medallions in foreclosure. None of this mattered.

Nothing Mr. Motta could do or say would matter. Ms. Chavez took 25 minutes to decide the city was right and Shehu's medallion was revoked. Mr. Motta didn't even stick around to hear her finish reading her verdict. He stormed out, clearly disgusted with the injustice that had occurred.

Goliath won. The city took a dead man's medallion. The city took a dead man's money. The city added to Mrs. Hoxha's troubles by taking $100,000 from her. This is how our story ends. Of course, Mr. Motta said he would expect an appeal and that he was confident a circuit court or appellate court would rule in his client's favor. None of that matters to me though - the fate of Shehu's medallion vanished along with my faith in Chicago.

I used to hold on to a glimmer of hope that our city was really trying to help us. That was before I saw my first cabdriver hearing at 400 W. Superior; before I watched what the city did to Mrs. Hoxha. And for what, $100,000? This city expects to bring in $9 billion in 2009, and it couldn't resist taking $100,000 from a woman who lost her entire family? That comes out to .001 percent of the city's total expected revenue - nice payday!

I end this with two questions, almost challenges, for the city of Chicago, the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection or any city employee. Please explain to me why taking this money was the right thing to do? Whom did this help? I ask again, why was taking $100,000 from Mrs. Hoxha the right thing to do and whom did this action help? “We had to,” by the way, is not an acceptable response.

I anxiously await an answer.

Re: For Shame

The city uses certain administrative law officers when they need a win. Believe it or not, not all of the ALO's give the city what they desire. I know of three that rule fairly. There may be more, I do not know.

I once was in the courtroom for a revocation hearing involving city attorney Stuart Alpern. The hearing officer did not revoke the medallion and charged a fine of 250.00 The fine was for the drivers temporary chauffeurs license being expired for six months. This ALO is a fair man. He hands out just punishment, not the murder the city wants.

The hearing with Motta and Rupal was just procedure. The city was already going to win since Chavez was on the bench. The only things that happen at the circuit court of Crook County is an administrative review. Motta files for the review (289.45)and the judge reviews the evidence from the hearing only! NOTHING NEW ALLOWED! This why why Motta wasn't allowed to force people to testify. The city would have had trouble in a review if different testimony had gone on the record. This medallion is probably lost.

Two things come to mind here, please remember I am a non attorney.
1) An appeal of the hearing on the grounds it somehow broke the rules of fairness. Witnesses were not allowed, service of potential witnesses was denied etc. All this would do is force a new hearing. I have never heard of this happening, but it would seem to be illegal to deny the serving of potential witnesses. A new hearing with the knowledge of getting EVERYTHING on the record would help in a circuit court review if the new hearing resulted in another revocation.


2) Wasn't this medallion holder represented by his affiliation? If so he always had a Chicago address. A management agreement and a appearance from his city licensed manager would have been a better defense than trying to get the guy that took over the apartment lease to testify. The affiliations have a managers license so they can represent their affiliates in time of need. Was a surrender form completed before the renewal date? It would appear that all the city had was a late renewal and the fact a dead man couldn't register his new office. An appearance from his affiliation at 2350 W. Ogden could have corrected this problem.

Motta might be a good attorney, maybe even a great one. However he didn't have what it took here, a real insiders knowledge of The ****ty of Chicagos ripoff hearing courts.

If I were representing this corporation, remember I'm not an attorney, I would appeal the hearing and ask the court to send it back to Superior. I would also ask for a stay of the current order pending final outcome. Then instruct the affiliation to pay the renewal fees and file the change of office.

One final thought, too bad this stuff is all bench. A jury would have been better.

Re: Re: For Shame/clarification

Stuart Alpern is an attorney for the city. The hearing officer was Richard Byrne. Byrne isn't a cut-throat kind of guy. Naturally the city didn't have him on the bench for the Shehu revocation.......

Re: Re: For Shame

we dont need more cabs, we got too many cabs!

Re: For Shame

This should be a wake up call to all owners. If the city can do this to Shehu, they can do this to you.

Re: No Shame! Stop more cabs!

The bussiness has been very slow. Everytime you are on street, you are between 5 empty cabs infront and behind you.
There always seem to be more cabs in city then private cars.

You can barely make $50 working 12 hours a day these days. Cabbies are doing road rage just to find the first available passengers.

Despite all these, The city is doing nothing to stop more cabs on street, they are not stopping issuance of new medallions. The chauffer class at HW college is still continuing.
The long time professional drivers are stopping to drive cabs due to very slow bussiness.
There are too many unprofessional, roookies customer unfreindly cabbies on street who don't know their way around and why talk on cell phone blue tooth while driving and keep cab dirty.

This also gives long time drivers bad names.

I wonder who will truely do somehting about this CAB FLOODING issue.

Just too many cabs and $50 a day for working 12 to 14 hours a day is a reality in cab bussiness!!!!!!

Re: For Shame

bussiness too slow!!!!! resturant or retail chan job?
Name: cabbie
Date Posted: Mar 18, 09 - 7:15 AM
Message: these days, i can barely make $40 working 12 hours.
Yesterday, i worked for 12 hours and total i made was $49. This is too low, maybe even lower then a amigos working as window cleaner at car wash.
I seriously want to change job cos i am going to be homeless if i continue this.

I intend to Mcdonald or Dunkin donut or at target or walmart as cashier, i heared i will at least make 8$ hourly plus benefits.
if i make less then $40 by working 12 hour as cabbie,
I will make more then $40 working at mcdonald as cashier in 6 hours.

Any ex drivers working anywhere else?
Pls advice me and suggest me in to finding a job.

thanks

Re: For Shame

Re: Re: UIC research study says, Chicago Cabbies make $ 4.25 hourly!

I agree bussiness has be steadily declining since 2007 due to slow bussiness and high increase in number of cabs.

I used to like this job but these days it's so painful.

Sometimes I am able to make $ 60 a day but most days, I make less then $50.

I don't know about walmart but I am looking to work at Target in Addsion and Kesdzie, Their hourly pay is $10, so I will make $80 daily working just 8 hours.
My freind's gf works there and she was able to find me a cashier job.