Sunday, December 26, 2010

Another lawsuit looming against MCSD

Could a blockbuster lawsuit be looming against the McHenry County Sheriff's Department?

The sheriff's own attorney told a judge in Rockford that a deputy had said (in deposition) that Sheriff Nygren had told the deputy to "murder someone", "to push a guy in front of a train who was a political opponent" and "to hang another guy and make it look like a suicide."

I thought about throwing in "allegedly", but then I re-read the transcript.

James Sotos, legal counsel for Sheriff Nygren, said in court on December 15, 2010, according to the court reporter's transcript:

"MR. SOTOS: He said the sheriff told him to murder somebody, too. He said a lot. He said the things that Mr. Horwitz said he said, and he said the sheriff told him to push a guy in front of a train who was a political opponent and that he told him to hang another guy and make it look like a suicide. And he said some of the stuff that Mr. Horwitz said, too. And I guess — I don’t know if counsel wasn’t done. So, I’ll –"

If you want to read the reaction of the "hangee", go to today and read about the very real possibility of a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the McHenry County Sheriff's Department and McHenry County.

Unfortunately, the Board may be nearly powerless to rein in the sheriff; they control only the purse-strings and may have little real authority over the sheriff himself, since the Sheriff is an elected official.


mike said...

At last, perhaps, the truth comes out about the "assassination plot" Oh, what should we do? I know, "Let's sue!" Like One HungLo says, "follow the money." Follow it from the county coffers to a blogger posting insanities and watch at least some of it, he hopes, land in his pockets. I predict that this will go the route of everything else Bachmann's posted. Nowhere! I have read that he's working hand in hand with the FBI and other federal agencies. Now he comes right out and accuses them of being tools of Nygren who have come to his house - previously he only hinted at this in his recent ramblings.

At some point in time a line has to be drawn. It would appear, if the allegation that Millman is suspended is factual, that that time has come and gone. How much is an employer required to take under the guise of free speech before he is allowed to place somebody on administrative suspension (no loss of pay, right?) and force that individual to put forth evidence of the merits of "case." I cannot think of one instance where someone would be permitted to accuse someone of solicitation to commit murder or a raft of other criminal offenses with total immunity. What would happen if Judge Mahoney's court clerk accused him on a blog of taking bribes? What would happen if Rahm Emanuel had accused B.O. of being a native born citizen of Kenya, what if...?

That's all we have here so far, crazy allegations by one or two individuals of crimes dating back more than a decade, supposedly reported to OTHER law enforcement agencies and yet nothing, absolutely NOTHING has been brought forth in the way of a formal accusation let alone a conviction.

mike said...

Why? Because there is nothing there comes to mind as a logical excuse. If Millman is suspended and they are taking action against him, that is great! He has all this proof, now he'll have a proper forum and motivation to get it all out there in the public eye. He will have to prove his allegations against Nygren and anyone else smeared by his libel and slander, not the other way around. I really look forward to reading about that.

As somebody posted, it appears that Millman has brain cancer or had it. My heart goes out to anyone in his fix but that does not give him the right to say what he's saying without proof. Further, that some people would seize upon these rantings and attempt to give them credibility by repeating them over and over is sickening.

You seem to place great stock in the fact that because Dave continues to repeat Millman's and Seipler's rantings, as does Skinner and as you do, that somehow that establishes their charges as fact or lends credibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you continually print, without caveat, the statement that "The sun ALWAYS RISES in the WEST" and slant your reporting to make it appear that the person who is so stating really knows the score and is truthful, you don't give him credibility, you detract from whatever little credibility that you yourself have.

Bachmann mentions in his blog announcing his law suit (which I doubt will ever be filed) all the money the county will pay out for libel and slander (?), I wonder if you bloggers have done all that much research into your own exposure for publishing and republishing some of this trash. I think you'll find a) that there IS liability to the author and b) that in the case of a moderated blogsite such as this, where the "owner" holds the key to what does and does not see the light of day in the comments, that they can be held responsible for certain reckless statements published with their APPROVAL.

But Seriously said...

The mud thrown at the Sheriff by the blogger who is now threatening to sue our county has been shady to say the least. If he files a lawsuit with specific complaints making his rantings more widespread, I too would expect the couple of blogs that keep repeating his rantings to be named in some very large counter suits. Hey I am just a commenter on local blogs with no connection to the Sheriffs department and I have saved/documented several untrue statements of "fact" made against me by the bloggers in question.

Gus said...

I continue to be amazed by the comments directed at the bloggers; mis-directed, I should say.

Read the transcript again. Read the court reporter's transcription of the words of Attorney James Sotos, who is the SHERIFF'S OWN ATTORNEY.

Still have a problem? You can reach Mr. Sotos tomorrow at 630/735-3301. CAUTION - you might have to give his secretary your real name. Using my name won't work.

But Seriously said...

Huh? Because an attorney states that someone is accusing someone of something that somehow lends credence to if it is true or not? I don't get where you are going with that one.

Steve said...

Just because Horwitz, Sotos, Bachmann, Seipler, Skinner, Philpott, and Judge Mahoney comment on what Millman says (under oath or not) does NOT in any way, shape or form go to the truth or falsity of the matter. Right now all that we have to believe is that Millman CLAIMS he was asked to kill David Bachmann, Gus Philpott, and, apparently the late Judge Conrad Floeter by the current sheriff. One man says this without any corroboration whatsoever and you stand there and tell us that this is a smoking gun? Are you nuts?

Gus said...

Steve, I can only speak for myself. I am not commenting on what Milliman may or may not have said under oath.

I am reporting what Mr. Sotos said in Federal Court to Judge Mahoney and commenting on that.

Notawannabee said...

Sotos did not say it was factual, he simply restated what Milliman said as an allegation, never did he agree with Milliman.

Rather than just accepting that Sotos is merely repeating back Milliman’s words, you make it sound as if Sotos as admitting it is true. Far from the case.

For all the hours you supposedly spend in court, you have no concept of court procedure.

What a "Jack Wagon."

Gus said...

"MR. SOTOS: He said the sheriff told him to murder somebody, too. He said a lot. He said the things that Mr. Horwitz said he said, and he said the sheriff told him to push a guy in front of a train who was a political opponent and that he told him to hang another guy and make it look like a suicide. And he said some of the stuff that Mr. Horwitz said, too. ... "

But Seriously said...

Ummm...Gus, he was pointing out that the guy made a bunch of unbelievable accusations...Nothing more...As an fictitious example, If an attorney points out that a drugged up or brain damaged witness hallucinated and claims to have seen purple unicorns playing golf it does not mean that attorney actually believes that they guy actually saw purple unicorns playing golf nor does it prove factually that purple unicorns were playing golf...

Gene said...

IF Nygren is investigated, indicted, has a fair trial, and is then thrown in jail, will you douchebags believe Milliman or will all this still be purple unicorns. You guys are so addicted to the overtime and promotions you can't think straight. He is not God, he is just another bully with a badge who thinks he is scary because he is tall, fat, and ugly. Walrus like.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe lawyers, as officers of the court, are allowed to alleged "facts" if there is no evidence to support their claims.

From what I have read both Sotos and Horwitz are well known and who one would condsider "high powered" attorneys.

(Sotos has argued in front of the Supreme Court and Horwitz has won the largest Civil Rights lawsuit in Midwest history.)

I have to believe that before either of these men would allow the other to speak without a factual basis they would object or state for the record that something is a miss and "sanctions" should be envoked.

You do realize in the law enforcement world you only have to have Probable Cause to arrest someone. From these transcripts there appears to be Probable Cause to arrest Nygren and this Bruketta deputy.

Since when is the testimony of a sworn deputy not Probable Cause? If that is not Probable Cause then no on would ever be arrested.

(Example: speeding ticket, cops word vs. driver)

If this Milliman is lying, shouldn't Nygren arrest him for perjury? He was under oath when he testified, right?