Saturday, September 11, 2010

What if Tonigan investigated MCSD?

What if special prosecutor Henry Tonigan had been sicced on the McHenry County Sheriff's Department?

What would he have found?

How many violations of General Orders (the "rules of the road" within the sheriff's department) would he have found that constitute major problems for the public?

Ex., deputies conspiring to coordinate written reports of serious incidents, so that blame is deflected away from deputies and onto citizens (Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Pavlin injuries and arrests; David Maxson fatality);

Ex., criminal matters (battery and DUIs) that were handled "administratively" (quietly) within the Department and out-of-sight of the media and the public and the courts);

Ex., false crash reporting, to deflect blame and legal responsibility from a deputy who caused the crash;

Ex., internal Human Resources decisions that condoned "very close" personal relationships between supervisor and subordinate.

To what extent were personnel and office equipment of the Sheriff's Department used for political purposes when arranging parade and County Fair appearances by those on the payroll at the Sheriff's Department?

Just where is the line between office publicity and political campaigning, when it comes to appearance by personnel and equipment in parades and public events?

Tonigan got pointed at, and paid for investigating, the State's Attorney's Office. Will a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate the Sheriff and the Sheriff's Department? Will the County Board cough up $100,000 in emergency funds for that?

If they do, it will be well beyond Nov. 2 before the public ever hears of it.

14 comments:

But Seriously said...

Gus,
Sadly I believe this is going to escalate. The moment Bianchi decided to go after the college student that used to be his secretary this was inevitable.

Anonymous said...

The dogs of political war decided to attack Bianchi to get their guy in and seize power back to the Unholy Alliance side of things. Make no mistake, all our elected officials mis-use their office; some much more than others. Of course, they are afraid this may escalate into a full-out federal investigation. If it does, Bianchi may end up being the guy who picked up the dropped loaf of bread outside the store while it was being looted by the horde of thugs dressed in suits.

Anonymous said...

Gus, the County board and our politicians have to be careful as the majority of them are dirty!

Curious1 said...

Wow...Did not catch the first time I read this that you threw in the David Maxson death as a possible example of "deputies conspiring to coordinate written reports of serious incidents, so that blame is deflected away from deputies and onto citizens"

So what says Mr. Siepler? Did Deputies conspire to protect Seipler when Mr. Maxson died?

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=38022&src=4

Gus said...

Curious1, the link you provide is to an article written three years ago. The case continues in court.

As Zane knows, I have never faulted him for shooting when he did. By the time the call escalated to the point where Maxson threatened a sergeant with a knife, Zane had to shoot and did, accurately. His training and skill are not questioned by me.

It was the managed report-writing that was a problem for me. The response to the Maxson resident and the overall conduct of the deputies there unnecessary caused the incident to escalate.

A Crisis Intervention Trained deputy should have competently managed the scene; had that happened, I believe Maxson would have been taken into custody without injury and treatment for alcoholism and mental illness could have followed.

I predict that Zane will not be found at fault and that the MCSD will lose the case in court.

Zane said...

When and if I go into a deposition to testify about how the reports regarding the Maxson shooting were written you can bet your life I will tell the story just like it happened. So will at least two other deputies that were there.

We may catch some flack for group report writing.

We just did as Cundiff instructed.

I'm not worried about it. ISP didn't think it was a problem, with Maxson or Pavlin.

As for protecting me, when a man with two 8 inch plus knives, one in each hand tells you he's going to "F---ing Kill You!" and then aggressively advances across the room at you, your partners and your sergeant, you do what you have to do.

Let's make this perfectly clear. When I took the final shot, I wasn't protecting myself anymore, I was protecting my sergeant. Whether Koziol remembers that or not.

I took a man's life to ensure Koziol could go home to his wife and kids. Don't ever forget that.

I didn't and don't need protecting.
Never did.

Notawannabee said...

Oh Gus, Gus, Gus. More finger pointing. Boy can you hallucinate wrong doing. Going back to dragging the Pavlin’s into this? If the sitting SAO understood the laws of search and seizure and the constitutional authority of police affecting an arrest, this would be a slam dunk conviction AGAINST the Pavlin’s. However, in a hurry insult the MCSO, Bianchi dismisses charges rather than Nolle Pros charges. If Bianchi had been so concerned with right or wrong, don’t you think he could wait for the ISP to review it? No political gain there , just political grandstanding! Bottom line, the cops were right. I think Lou has his own problems right now.

David Maxson? Hold the press here Gus but what part did Zane have to do with this. Let me understand, they (deputies) protect him then, but conspire against him now?

If Nygren followed further behind his MCSO departmental vehicles, would that make you happy? As the head of a 400 person department he should be near them, plus people like to see the police equipment. Face it,the MCSO has some neat stuff(motorcycles, snowmobiles, shiny squad cars) of course the deputies get paid to drive them, I must assume this is their assignment for the day. How about the other departments that participate both police and fire? Even the volunteer firemen get a per diem. I suppose that even if Nygren carried the broom sweeping behind the horses, you’d still find a reason to complain.

Oh, and this is added for ZANE since I know he reads this blog.

Zane, you seem wound up tighter than a $2.00 Timex. Your own blog is looking more like Bachmann’s nonsense. Either you fell into a rabbit hole or you’re letting the things Nota and others say get under you skin…..RELAX.

Curious1 said...

I actually agree with you on this as far as most likely Zane should be cleared unfortunately I think instead of fighting it most likely the county will settle to avoid trial. I guess the irony that caught me is the guy who shouts officer cover-up conspiracy every time he doesn't like the officers involved wants everyone to just trust that apparently the one case deputies seemed to not conspire to cover for their own is the one where their reports vindicate him.

Gus said...

Curious1, you should read the reports from the Maxson shooting. Zane needs no "vindication"; he acted professionally and properly. The reports don't need to "protect" him.

The call to the Maxson residence was inproperly handled from its beginning. The number of deputies in the house and the shouting by them unnecessarily escalated Maxson's reactions.

The Coroner's Inquest was a joke. Even the Coroner's rules for inquests were not followed. One command officer summarizes the actions of the deputies. I think he was not even at the scene. The Coroner's rules call for the people involved to testify; they didn't!

The County will have a choice. Try to settle out-of-court, or lose in court. Justice won't matter; money will.

Gus said...

Notawannabe, you are dead wrong about the Pavlin case. The SAO was right to dump that case and WITH prejudice against refiling.

It should have been dropped months before, which would have saved the Pavlins considerable legal fees.

Curious1 said...

I think you guys are purposely missing the point. I believe the vast majority of the men and women at the Sheriff's Department to be honorable. I trust the reports they wrote on Zane's having to take Maxson's life. The difference is I don't just trust their reporting in the one case it benefits me and shout conspiracy when it only involves others. I think that is quite frankly hypocritical.

Gus said...

Curious1, have you read all the reports in the Maxson case?

I FOIA'ed them. MCSD provided them, as it was required to do. As I put them side-by-side and read them, I immediately thought that one person had written all of them.

In view of the reports in Woods' shooting injury incident, two of which contains an exact (EXACT, including punctuation) 71-word sequence of words, maybe I'll go back and re-examine the Maxson reports for identical sentences.

Those arriving at different times and observing from different positions will record events differently. That's understandable.

It was the sequence leading up to the shooting that caused the incident to escalate to the point where shooting Maxson was the only option.

From the beginning, and long before I knew Zane Seipler, I never faulted him for shooting when he did.

Had most of the deputies backed out of the room and left a trained C.I.T. deputy there to talk Maxson down, the incident would have taken longer than 43 minutes and ended with Maxson alive.

Curious1 said...

Trying to be more clear, Gus I agree with everything in your post except for I would not be willing to state solidly what the outcome would be in a differing scenario. I am of the belief that Siepler acted appropriately on the Maxson issue. My point is the fact that the reports were done in the group writing format does not prove a conspiracy or prove Siepler did anything wrong. However, in other cases some specific critics have claimed that the same style of group report writing is proof of some type of conspiracy or even possibly proof of wrongdoing. It either is or isn't. Deciphering the same act of group report writing in different ways depending on who you want to criticize is a bit hypocritical.

Gus said...

I'll go out on a limb here and criticize every group report-writing session that results in false reporting. Deputies should write their reports as they saw the incident unfolding.

No deputy should write his report to please his supervisor or to follow directions to phrase his report in any way other than in a truthful manner. Period.

Take a look at the Lisa Jarva/Deputy Sabol crash report. Sabol should have been Unit 1. He caused the crash when he began a U-turn before Jarva's vehicle passed him. But the sergeant switched Sabol from Unit 1 to Unit 2, and the County never paid for Jarva's $5,300 damages in 27 months. Frankly, she ought to sue.

And there should have been an investigation of the report. I realize this wasn't a "group" report-writing event - just fraudulent reporting.

Strong language? You bet. But the sergeant knew it was wrong. And a lieutenant and then the Undersheriff allowed it. Sheriff Nygren was informed but never required correction. Nor did the County Administrator, when the insurance claim was denied.