As we noted earlier this month, 11th District Republican congressional candidate Martin Ozinga III is in a bit of hot water stemming from a lawsuit his concrete company, Ozinga Bros., Inc., brought against 83-year-old farmer Raymond Kunkel. The suit attempts to force Kunkel to sell a 190-acre lot to the company. However, the discovery process has resulted in a serious dispute over whether Ozinga met personally with Kunkel regarding the land.
A May 10 Peoria Journal-Star article reported that Ozinga argued in a sworn affidavit that he shouldn't be deposed in the case because he "had no contact or communication of any kind" with Kunkel. His claim was then directly contradicted by Kunkel and four other witnesses who contend that they and Ozinga met at Kunkel's home in 2004 to discuss a deal on the land. When presented with the affidavits of the those who said they attended the meeting, Circuit Judge John Barra ordered that Ozinga be deposed.
The deposition took place last Friday at the Ozinga Bros. headquarters in Orland Park. According to a transcript obtained by Progress Illinois, Ozinga appears to backtrack from his earlier assertion of "no contact or communication" with Kunkel and instead repeatedly states that he has "no recollection" of the meeting:
Q. Mr. Ozinga, are you claiming that you had absolutely no involvement with any negotiations with Raymond Kunkel or Ramar Farms for the purchase of the Section 9 property in Marshall County?
A. This affidavit was meant to state that I have no recollection of meeting Raymond Kunkel or negotiating personally directly with him.
Q. Okay. And in other words, and if I'm misstating your words, please tell me so. Have you ever met Raymond Kunkel?
A. Not to my recollection. (Pages 15-16)
(Click "Read More" to continue ...)
The attorney conducting the deposition goes on to ask if Ozinga has ever met the four individuals who claim to have witnessed his meeting with Kunkel:
Q. And do you have any recollection of any meeting wherein Ron Smith, Kenin Edwards, Joe Brent and Georgiana Brent were present?
A. I do not recall that collection of folks meeting all at the same time. I have no recollection of that. (Page 17)
The lawyer then asks if Ozinga has "ever suffered anything that resulted in an impairment of your memory," to which Ozinga answers, "No."
During the proceedings, Ozinga's attorney seems intent on distancing his client from the original affidavit, saying at one point that the document does not represent "the claims we are making in this case."
We're still digging through the deposition, but the overarching question seems to be this: Assuming Ozinga was not telling the truth when he denied ever having "contact" with Kunkel in the original affidavit, why would he have gone to such lengths to avoid being deposed?
Or is he simply another Republican with a tough time remembering things?
Post new comment