Sunday, August 2, 2009

Survey - Pavlins vs. MCSD

A recent survey here drew the most votes in two years – 123. Many thanks to all of you who voted. The question was, “Based on what you have read and heard, who is right?

The results?

The Pavlins? 29 votes (23.6%)
The Sheriff’s Dept.? 94 votes (76.4%)

This case will now play out in two arenas. Sheriff Nygren has asked the Illinois State Police to investigate.

Since Mr. and Mrs. Pavlin have already been cleared by the dismissal of all charges with prejudice against any refiling of charges, it seems to me that the investigation might target alleged excessive use of force and other possible mishandling of the case by deputies of the Sheriff’s Department.

The other arena is U.S. District Court, where Mr. and Mrs. Pavlin have filed a lawsuit against the sheriff and seven deputies. A Chicago law firm is representing them.

What law firm will handle the defense of the sheriff and his deputies and at what cost? Will each of the deputies retain his own counsel, in order to guarantee that he is represented in his sole interest? Will the Sheriff’s Department pay for their defense, if they want private counsel?


DA said...

Looks like, even with all of your biased "reporting" of your version of the story, over 3 out of 4 people disagree with your opinion.

GeneL said...

DA, online surveys aren't always accurate, people can vote more than once. Just like people did in the last presidential election. Besides the only opinions that will count will be the 6 or 12 people in the federal jury. The trail is in Rockford, good chance they'll be minorities. You know, people who are tired of taking beat downs from the police.

DA said...

GeneL, your bigotry is showing...better hurry and cover it up.

QuitWhiningAlready said...

Off topic...but didn't Zane have something with his lawsuit this past month? I thought it was mid July.

Zane said...

I sure did have something in mid July. I think it went well. No decision has been made yet but my lawyers think the testimony that was given is going to come in very handy.

To all Sheriff's Department employees, I encourage you to review your personnel files immediately. Thanks to my personal dilligence I was able to provide copies of all the documentation that mysteriously went missing from my file prior to the arbitration hearing.

Gus, I have a question for you. As Sheriff will you allow a senior supervisor to search and seize the personal belongings of a deputy and 48hrs later instruct a different supervisor to go obtain a search warrant for said belongings?

Let me rephrase, would you allow a supervisor to go raise his right hand in front of a judge in order to obtain a warrant knowing that what that supervisor was about to swear to was in fact a lie?

Gus said...

Zane, absolutely I would not! False testimony under oath cannot be tolerated.

Supervisors will set an example of the highest integrity, honesty and obedience to laws. If they don't, I'll get someone who will.

I agree with your suggestion that each employee should review his personnel file. Make certain it is accurate and complete - before you need it. Hopefully, you won't ever need it.

DA said...

Zane, what personal belongings and where were they located when they were seized?

Zane said...

Doesn't matter DA, what and where. What matters is the belongings were seized and 48 hrs later a supervisor raised his right hand, swore under oath and obtained a warrant for belongings that were already in police custody. It is perjury to lie to a judge under oath and I can't imagine that the judge was told that these belongings had been seized 48hrs earlier.

Now I know DA will begin to argue whether a warrant was necessary. (Because DA is a member of MCSD and he has the department's talking points ready.) Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. If it wasn't necessary why bother getting it and why commit perjury? If it was necessary, well you can see where this is going, illegal search, seizure, perjury, official misconduct.

My legal staff loves it! The Sheriff looked pretty surprised when he was handed the documents. I have a feeling this was done without his knowledge.

Lately MCSD is under a lot of scrutiny over the execution of warrants. Here's some advice, pause take a deep breath, think the situation through completely, then execute the warrant. There is rarely a rush. I wasn't going anywhere, Carl wasn't going anywhere. If you're worried about officer safety go get SWAT, that's what they're for. Better yet call a deputy with common sense.

GeneL said...

Zane, well said. DA, what's the bigotry in my comments? QWA, what, no comments defending the police.

QuitWhiningAlready said...

GeneL, I know very little about this case, I've added my thoughts to previous posts and I thought I had made it clear I would more or less sit back and see what happens. I inquired because for such a heated topic, things have been quiet regarding Zane and I thought maybe I had misread the dates.