Ages ago, 'way back on September 11, I faxed a FOIA request to the Illinois State Police. Such requests used to go to a woman at the ISP, but now the Legal Office has taken over.
(I have some experience with legal offices. Too often when they get involved, you might as well set some extras clocks to running.)
When a FOIA Request is filed, an organization has seven (7) business days to respond. So, along about September 22, they should have a reply out the door to me. Adding a couple of days for the Pony Express to make the run up I-55, I should have had it no later than September 24. Adding a few more days for flooded rivers, tired horses and no coins for the tolls on the Tollway, should I have had a reply by October 1?
I already knew the rules of the game, before I called the Trooper who must have missed an important meeting and got stuck with phone duty to explain why replies were not going out. While an organization, such as the Illinois State Police, is supposed to send a letter acknowledging that they are missing the 7-day window and need 7 more days, he told me what I already knew. Failure to reply can be deemed a denial and, if I want to appeal, I should appeal to the Director of the State Police.
What was so important that a FOIA Request was sent to the Illinois State Police? Remember Amy Dalby?
In the transcript of her sentencing hearing were some important words, "Defendant gave an off-duty Sheriff's Deputy, who was working on behalf of the political campaign, the flash drive that contained all the data that was removed from the McHenry State's Attorney's Office."
Whoa! Wait a minute! A sheriff's deputy had possession of a flash drive containing stolen data?
Okay, so who is this deputy?
But there is more - "... at least two off-duty sheriff deputies working on behalf of the campaign play the role at various times in transferring this computer data to others for campaign related purposes."
So now there are two? Or, are there three deputies who came in contact with the stolen data? And didn't confiscate it? Or turn it in?
What I'm waiting for from the State Police are documents identifying these two or three deputies.
The Illinois State Police investigator must know the names. Does Sheriff Nygren know the names by now? Where are the charges? Will there be criminal charges? Departmental administrative charges?
Of course, we must remember how slowly justice can move in McHenry County. The sentencing hearing was June 1. This is October 5. Just a few ticks on the ol' clock.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
16 comments:
Something was stolen? I thought the big expensive investigation ended with no finding of theft. In fact the unsealed files showed the States Attorney's office knew they still had said files when the requested the investigation despite denying it in the Daily Heralds FOIA request. I think you need to be careful accusing people of theft when the investigation showed nothing was missing and only misdemeanor tampering charges that will not show up on a permanent record were agreed to.
I mean just because you take pictures of peoples cars and show them around does not mean you stole their cars.
A plea agreement was reached in the Dalby case. She was not found innocent. A theft occurred. She got off extremely lite. I wish someone would print the transcripts.
Dalby admits to stealing. Judge Condon tells Dalby that she is getting a huge break. All parties stipulate to the following, "It was at that meeting that the Defendant (Dalby)gave an off-duty Sheriff's deputy, who was working on behalf of the political campaign, the flash drive that contained all the data that was removed from the McHenry County State's Attorney's Office. That information was later given to other individuals working on the campaign against the elected State's Attorney." This part is even better, "By the way of additional aggravation, the flash drive that the Defendant (Dalby) gave the off-duty Sheriff's Deputy that contained all the State's Attorney computer data has now according to that off-duty Sheriff's Deputy has allegedly been lost."
These quotes can be found on page 16, lines 10-23.
The best part about this is that the names of the deputies are already out there. We know who they are.
M.C. and G.P.
Keep pushing the issue Gus.Regna and Nygren's posse will go down eventually. The best part will be when they all turn on each other.
Attorney General's office has a link on it's website that gives detailed instructions on how to complain if a FOIA request is not addressed in a timely fashion. ISP falls under their jurisdiction.
Sorry but you are simply wrong. Dalby only plead to a minor computer tampering charge. The massively expensive investigation resulted in no convictions on theft. All the original files were still on the States Attorney's computers. The constant drum beating on "theft" does not change the fact. It's like saying taking a picture of a document and posting it on your website is the same as "stealing" it or taking a picture of a car and posting it is the same as stealing it. Just not factual.
I'm honestly still a little vague on the State Police's involvement at the point before a special prosecutor was involved. Was the trooper involved at that point as a friend of the Bianchi campaign at the request of Bianchi's office or was he operating on direction from Command staff at the State Police Headquarters?
How many felony charges were filed, before the ultimate "tampering" conviction? There wasn't any "tampering". It's not like Dalby took something home by mistake and returned it the next morning. There was no "Ooops" here.
Anyway, the point of the FOIA Request is to get the names of the McHenry County deputy sheriffs whose names, so far, have escaped the public view. Why???
If they chase a bank robber and the bank's money blows out the robber's car window, can other deputies just scoop it up and take it home? Some will.
Most deputies (I hope) will turn it in.
Still think the "theft" analogy is a bad one. In the case of the bank robbery the victim actually lost possession of something. The State's Attorney's office never lost possession of anything according facts made public so far. The more appropriate analogy is if a former bank employee took pictures of that cash in effort to document serial numbers for what they thought was embezzlement. It may be against policy or even illegal to take those pictures but the bank still has the money there was no theft because nothing was stole.
" You don't have the right to take your boss' stuff because you are informed by others that perhaps he ought not be creating those things in the first place. I mean you just don't have the right. You can report the behavior to the police. You can complain to your employer. You can quit your employment. You can do all those things. But, you know your employer's papers and files belong to your employer. And you ought to have left this material there, in my opinion."- Judge Condon Page 50 Lines 6-15
ILCS 5/16-1- THEFT- A person commits theft whe he knowingly a.)obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property of the owner or 5.)Obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of any law enforcement agency which is explicitly represented to him by any law enforcement officer or individual acting in behalf of a law enforcement agency as being stolen and A.) intends to deprive the owner permanently of the benefit of the property.
No matter how you spin it "Theft" is "Theft". Dalby is lucky Condon was such a sympathetic judge and she was such a naive little girl.
I hope the judge that goes after M.C. and G.P. aren't as sympathetic. They are supposed to know better.
Curious1, this is never going to go away until it is settled or people start resigning. There are a lot of us now. Working very hard to bring light to the entire situation.
As you quoted, "and A.) intends to deprive the owner permanently of the benefit of the property."
We now know after the last batch of documents being unsealed that despite implications otherwise Bianchi's office never was deprived of these documents, they always had them even if they dodged a freedom of information request to release them by oddly claiming it was unduly burdensome to look on the computer they knew they were suppose to be on.
Furthermore, Condon did not drop any charges from being sympathetic or otherwise. The prosecutor made that decision immediately after they were ordered to release copies of the political documents (that some where denying existed up to that point) in question to the defense.
If I were to download WINDOWS XP without authorization from Microsoft it would be theft.
ILCS 5/16-1- THEFT- A person commits theft when he knowingly a.)obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property of the owner
Let's talk about the charges M.C. and G.P. should be thinking about:
1.) Official Misconduct
2.) Preservation of Evidence
3.) Conspiracy
I am sure, just based on the Dalby transcripts that there is more than enough probable cause to facility an arrest. Not to mention the countless General Order infractions.
What is Keith Nygren waiting for. Pay Lutz some overtime and get on it. Nygren has been spending a lot of time in the office lately. Instead of mumbling to himself and attempting to intimidate political opponents he should be cleaning his house. This isn't going to go away. It's only going to get worse.
Hey, what's going on with the ISP investigation of the Pavlin incident? Have those deputies been cleared yet?
Curious1, if I download your personal info (social security number, birthdate,etc.,etc) from your employer's computer, wouldn't you consider that theft, even though I never stole your employer's actual computer. What if I stole secret corporate formulas from your employer and ditributed them to your employer's rival companies. I know these are hard concepts to grasp. First start by imagining you're actually employed. Picture yourself at your dream job (KFC manager),and you steal the secret recipe, then you pass the formula to two sheriff's deputies, who then pass it on to Popeyes. Don't you think KFC would be upset.
If only you guys could have convinced Hutchinson to run, maybe you would have had a chance. Instead you were stuck with Danni. Now Tiffi has to write never ending comments all over the blogs.
Curious1, the state police were involved on behalf of the special prosecutor. The reports contain the names of the two sheriff's deputies who were involved in the transportation of stolen computer files (confidential data),not actual boxes of paper files. 5000 files would be too hard for a poor little innocent college girl to carry. We already know one of the deputies(not even a real deputy) was Danni's campaign manager. What a coincidence.
Gene...I actually did not think the State Police involved in the special prosecutors case at that point...My question is who were they investigating for? As part of this FOIA request it would be interesting to learn if this State Police "investigator" was pursuing this before the special prosecutor on direction from State Police Headquarters or as a "friend" of the Bianchi campaign?
I mean for consistency sake if you want to demonize two officers who came across these documents and did not turn them over to the Attorney Generals office, now that we know that Political Campaign documents were on States Attorney's office computers should not all officials who did not turn this info over to the Attorney Generals office when they became aware of this irregularity face the same scrutiny?
Dalby herself knew about the typed campaign documents, because she typed them , right. But she never went to ANY authority with this these awful documents. Instead she downloaded copies of 5000 confidential documents; which included personnel files, confidential informant files, criminal cases, etc.
Couldn't she have just downloaded the 5,10,20 or whatever campaign docs. Isn't odd how the stolen files ended up in the hands of the SA's rival at campaign time. Did the AG ever look into these SA docs. Did the AG or any other agency start any investigation after seeing these "political letters" that Dalby typed. Why did she type these letters if she knew they were illegal. Employees do not have to follow orders from an employer that are illegal. But I know she was just a poor innocent college girl who was investigated by her evil boss.
It would be healthy to let go of the Dalby witch hunt...The allegations she stole documents has been investigated thoroughly and the case has been adjudicated and is over...Those who think she should have gotten more that the minor and temporary tampering charge or that others should have been charged need to come to the realization that part of the story is over and the hand picked investigator/prosecutor is done and has turned in his final bill...sorry if that portion of it did not turn out the way you wanted,but the investigation now is into Bianchi's actions...and the next story will be on the hearing on contempt charges against Dalby's prosecutor.
Curious1, I couldn't agree with you .... less!
First of all, in the Dalby case they are no longer "allegations." And, yes, the case against Dalby is over.
If 1-2-3 deputies (or, if not "deputies", then other employees of the Sheriff's Dept.) had either the flash drive or the data stolen from the SAO in their possession, they should be prosecuted.
According to the Illinois State Police, Cooper acknowledged that he had the flash drive in his safety deposit box. Why didn't he turn it over to ISP Sgt. Harris in 2008? How did it get "lost"? Did it just bounce out of his car, when he went over some railroad tracks?
Who was the other "deputy sheriff" mentioned in the Dalby sentencing hearing transcript?
Why didn't O'Connor name them?
No, it's not over.
Post a Comment