Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Where must sheriff live?

One of the qualifications to be elected as, or appointed, Sheriff of McHenry County is that the candidate must have lived in the County for 12 months. In addition, the candidate must be a U.S. citizen, not a felon and at least 18 years of age.

Once in office, must the sheriff continue to reside in the County?

The question arose immediately after the November 2010 election, when Keith Nygren sold his home in Hebron, Ill. For about four months after that, he did not have a legal residence in McHenry County. He had a roof over his head. It was the roof of the house he had sold and from which he refused to move.

For reasons yet unknown, the Buyer failed to enforce his right to take possession of the $180,000 house he had just paid $250,000 for. And it took him four months to get Nygren out of his house.

Some of his initial resistance to tossing Nygren out might have had to do with his being an employee of the Sheriff's Department. And not just "an employee". A good employee and the Sheriff's chauffeur during political parades. Did the friendship dissolve over Nygren's refusal to move out? And did the Buyer then quit his job or was he basically forced out of it? Did he quit under duress?

I've always wondered about the "deal" he got on the house. Why did he pay $70,000 more than it appeared to have been worth? And how easy was it for him to get his mortgage at Home State Bank, where Nygren dealt?

Home State Bank had loaned Nygren $690,000 on a $620,000 house purchase in Florida. Most people have trouble getting a 100% mortgage; Nygren's was $70,000 (11%) over the full purchase price! Sweet, huh?

So, after election, must a sheriff continue to reside in the County of his Office? And the reason for the question?

Where does Keith Nygren live now? Some folks thought he lived in Boulder Ridge. Some Boulder Ridge folks think he doesn't.

Is there anyone keeping an eye on the requirement, if there is one, that the sheriff must reside in the county of his elected office?

Whose job is it to monitor "little" things like that? And who would enforce it? The State's Attorney? Not likely. He is the sheriff's attorney. Remember?


Katherine said...

This isn't the first time you have mentioned that Nygren sold his house and refused to move. And that it took the new owner four months to get him out of his house. How do you know this? Maybe he was renting? Maybe that was the agreement when he sold the house?

Steve said...

Gus HAS to keep mentioning this stuff, Katherine. It's his sad, pathetic life. His sole purpose (he thinks) is to insert himself into everyone's business. Why Nygren didn't get OUT of his car and pull Gus out of that little bug is beyond me. Guess that's why Nygren is the sheriff - he keeps his calm in the face of folks who follow him and then cry when they get stared at. That's right, STARED AT! Oh the horrors.

Gus says the sheriff did not have a LEGAL residence for four months after selling his house in Hebron. Really? What's a legal residence, Gus? You say it's more than a roof over his head. Are you saying one must be a homeowner to have a legal residence and thus be eligible to run and hold office? If so, when was the last time (if ever) that you owned property in McHenry County - or anywhere else?

Your questions about the value have been discussed "ad nauseum" and the short answer to both the price paid and the difficulty in that buyer getting a loan at Home State or anywhere is quite simply: IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Not even remotely! How much do you make peddling electronic cards on the internet? How much did you pay to get into that racket? How much do you pay in rent each month for your apartment? How much of it is paid by the McHenry County Housing Authority? Are you getting LINK benefits? The answer to MY questions is the same as to yours - NOBODY'S BUSINESS BUT YOURS, CERTAINLY NOT ANY OF MINE!

With all your investigative skills, Gus, I'm really surprised that you haven't spotted Nygren's residence. Maybe you are afraid to do a "drive by" - scared that he'll GLARE at you again?

Maybe, as Ray suggests in a manner far more kindly than I, you should grab the phone and call Dr. Elizabeth McMasters and avail yourself of her fine services.

Nice that she will remain available to folks like you who need her services.

Gus said...

As Ray would say, Steve, Steve, Steve...

Let me answer a few of your questions.

You're familiar with Disorderly Conduct? Assault? Battery? That's why Nygren didn't get out of his car and approach me.

For your information, I have never knowingly followed Nygren ANYWHERE. If he says I followed him that day, or any day, he's a liar.

I don't know what was involved in the Nygren/Krause real estate deal, but I can think of only a couple of reasons to pay so much over the Fair Market Value.

The buyer might qualify for a larger loan, based on an inflated purchase price and if the lender doesn't look too closely at the deal. And there might be a kickback of the over-payment later.

All that would constitute mortgage fraud, and I'm sure that our sheriff and his long-time employee would never engage in such a scheme. Would they?

As I said, I don't know any details of the transaction,

FYI, I'm not in the e-card business.

And while it's none of your business, I'm happy to tell you how much rent assistance I get each month from the McHenry County Housing Authority. Exactly zero ($0.00).

And LINK? Exactly zero ($0.00).

Seems to me that you have a huge problem with people who stand up and ask questions.

Gus said...

A sharp-eyed reader has reminded me that the mortgage on Nygren's Florida house was $698,000, not $690,000.

Thanks to this reader for letting me know.

DColley said...


When a person takes a position of public trust, such as a Sherrif or a deputy, what that person does whether public or private, becomes the public's business. If they dont' like that, then they need to find another job.

Just want to point out, too, that the one thing one must have to succeed long term in law enforcement is integrity. That is lacking in the leadership in the Department. The standards and the leadership are abysmal both in terms of personal and professional dealings.

If you're okay with that, then that's your problem. Some of us aren't - those of us who have been personally affected by this lack of integrity and leadership are not okay with it.

Gus said...

DColley, many thanks for your comment about one of the most important words in law enforcement, or in life itself. Integrity.

Integrity is absent all across the senior command structure at MCSD.

The People will have a chance to start correcting it in November 2014. Whether they'll do it remains to be seen.

Ray said...

DColley ... while I can agree with you that our leaders need integrity ... I feel you have missed the point.

Is it just me or does Gus just guess that there is something wrong with the Sheriff's real estate transaction. He said he doesn't know.

If he doesn't know than it is irresponsible to speculate what the problem might be ...

That is the problem, ... either show us the facts or shut up ... without that it makes for really silly endless arguments about fantasies. And nothing is accomplished.

Of course, as I have already demonstrated, Gus won't shut up, even as he admits he doesn't know the things he guesses at ... as a result people get really mad at him.

Example Gus Blog: C has been accused of being a child molester. I don't have any evidence that C is a child molester, but being a child molester is a bad thing. For example children get molested and they are hurt. Hurting children is bad. I will never shut up about child molesting!!!

In the example Gus blog, I would point out that he has no evidence that C molested children. But Gus would reply. You can't stop me from protecting the children.

And I would say, you haven't protected the children because you don't know if any molestation has occurred. And he would say you can't stop me from talking about child molesters!!

No, Gus I can't. But your not helping, and just because you have an opinion based on nothing, doesn't mean that you care or that your are engaging in helpful discourse.

Ray said...

Gus you said that integrity is absent all across the senior command structure at MCSD.

If you could support that comment that would be journalism.

If you can't -- I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if it is just an opinion, isn't it just silly.

Gus said...

Ray, about whom are you talking? "C"? Is C a person against whom felony charges have been filed?

Gus said...

Ray, are you sure your friends at MCSD want examples to be given?

DColley said...

I have to disagree. In a position of public trust, one must avoid not only actions that diminish the public trust but also any actions that appear to diminish the public trust.

Selling a home to someone for significantly more than the generally agreed upon value can certainly be considered to be potentially cause for concern.

Something similar to this actually occurred within my agency and the top level official in question was very open with the details, shared all documents associated with the transaction and spoke to the media about it. This transparency associated with the investigation and subsequent response took much of the "drama and mystery" out of the situation.

One simple way to dispel this myth, if it is indeed a myth, is to respond and show that no wrongdoing has occurred. In a position such as Sheriff, I would think this would be an appropriate response to the speculation around this transaction.

It is a little disturbing that things like this are taking place and nobody seems to be really questioning it. When someone does question it, there doesn't seem to be any response from the Department.

Gus said...

DColley, thanks for your comments. I don't know where you live (and am not asking), but around here we do not have investigative newspaper reporting. The Chicago Tribune sniffs around a little, but not the others.

Ray said...

C is nobody. It was an example of how it is wrong to accuse someone of something that has never been proven, or even of something that you have no evidence at all.

Second point .... you said "My friends at MCSD" ahahhhahahhahah, wait, wait, ahahahhhahahhhahah, stop your killing me that is hilarious.

1. First I am a successful defense attorney -- how many sheriff friends could I have?

2. Second I ran against the Sheriff's candidate for State's Attorney ... does that sound friendly?

3. Third, this is the perfect example of what I was trying to demonstrate before ... when you just make stuff up ... not only is it silly and hilarious ... but it doesn't carry any punch.

I mean I have to ask, are you smoking some funny tobacco, what in the wide world of sports lead you to believe that I have "friends" in the department, when ALL evidence suggest that I have enemies in the department??? I mean that is crazy ...

Now if you suggest that because I take the same position as they do from time to time I must be on their side ... well that's because you are not very smart ... let me help ... the reason I seem to take their side is because I always try to take the right side of the issue, not because it's popular, but because it's right.

Sometimes I even agree with you. But no one on the planet has ever accused me of being your friend (because I agree with you), and if they did it would be just as hilarious and wrongheaded as your suggestion.


Ray said...


Generally I agree with you, being candid can quell a lot of rumors, but I think you miss who you are dealing with here.

Gus is the kind of guy who says "show me the document" and after he sees it, will invent another reason he doesn't like it.

A lot like birthers. They say the birth certificate is fake, and when you show them a certified copy, they say that the certified copy must be fake--or some other objection that did not exist before the document was revealed.

This is a common political tactic these days, used because the electorate has the length of perception of a goldfish. Some take advantage of this and keep on making stuff up or assuming facts not established, because they know someone won't call them on it.

Except me.

Gus said...

Ray, was it a good night last night? How do you get from poorly-drafted trust agreements to "birthers" to goldfish? Wonderful.

I never met a poorly-drafted legal agreement that I didn't like. Like to criticize, that is. I've seen a lot of bad ones, but the afore-mentioned one gets First Prize. Thank you for making it available for inspection.

If that one had been drawn for a client, well... you can guess what would follow.

And what does any of that have to do with where the sheriff lives?

Oh, yes...integrity, trust, documents; that's where we were.

Ray said...

DColley said that more disclosure is better. I suggested that more disclosure is not better in some cases, and gave the example of when I disclosed the trust document to you.

That must seem like a leap to you, two statements about exactly the same thing right in a row like that.

You have accused me of distraction before. The problem with your accusation is that it is not true. It is exactly what you are doing here ... somebody says something you don't care for and they are "deflecting" the conversation. It's cute really. You should do it more often.

Anyone able to follow an argument can see your action for what it is.

Now ask what is it? ... (couldn't help myself) lol