The McHenry County Sheriff's Department Merit Commission is supposed to meet monthly. There are bills to be paid, hires to be made, firings to be handled, and resignations to accept.
And an apology to be issued.
Greg Pyle must still have a job, even though he was jailed in January (released on bond) and jailed again after he was arrested on Federal charges. Nygren said he was going to let Pyle resign, but no resignation has yet been handled by the Merit Commission, so Pyle must sill have a job as a deputy sheriff in McHenry County.
Pyle has never been placed on unpaid administrative leave, since that has never been considered by the Merit Commission. Will he be suing the County for his pay?
The Merit Commission will not be issuing an apology to me for the lies contained in a letter sent to the Illinois Public Access Bureau as part of a Request for Review of an Open Meetings Act (OMA) violation.
The Commission's attorney relied on information from her "clients", the Merit Commission. Only three of the five commissioners were at the June 13 meeting. Present were Janelle Crowley, Chair, Patrick McAndrews (attorney), and Gloria (Urch) Van Hof. So three, plus the secretary for the Commission, know the truth. At least one of them lied - big-time - to the Commission's attorney, before she wrote on July 23 to the Attorney General in response to my OMA complaint.
If they were deposed in a lawsuit, would the one (or more) continue to lie? Their stories would start to conflict and unravel. I'm certain that Mr. McAndrews, Mrs. Van Hoff and the Commission secretary would tell the truth under oath.
They are lucky that I probably won't sue. I say, probably... No member of a public body should be able to escape punishment for lying. But maybe they should lie awake at night, wondering if they are going to get hauled into court over the defamatory remarks about me that were sent to the Attorney General's office.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
5 comments:
They are lucky you won't sue. Har har.
Look up "standing" in any law book, and see how that works out for you.
I would be super careful how much you write about defamation these days. Following you blog as I must do, you have given ample opportunity for someone to take you to court for libel. I can only assume that you have nothing that could be attached by the court.
That being said, I would have to guess that your own personal day in court can't be that far off after someone with some money gets offended. Who will you hire?
Interesting comment, Ray. From prior postings I'm sure your a lawyer. With the comments above I'd like to ask what you think of some of the crapola posted here that Gus approves and publishes. Okay, maybe they are not his words and he didn't write them, but when he moderates the postings, doesn't he put himself of approving of what is said and open himself up to getting sued for libel or defamation? If he didn't moderate this at all, I suspect he would have no more to fear than somebody who owns a fence and some clown comes by and writes "John Smith is an adulterous pedophile!" By moderating the comments, and allowing the same clown to post that, doesn't he become as liable as the author for the defamation/libel?
Gus has been famous, or rather infamous, for being "cute" and posing "questions" that serve only to paint his targets in the worst possible light. He complains about bullies but tries to be one himself. Typical in that his questions often seem to be of the "Do you still beat your wife" genre.
Cute, Steve. No worries here. Why don't you use your full and true name?
Steve, I believe that Gus is safe until he runs into someone who gets upset and wants to spend some money taking him to court.
He believes that he is establishing defenses when he is actually digging the hold deeper.
My father once said, "Everyone threatens to sue, few people do."
So we are left to take this blog as it is: an old man's rant against past transgressions that we can never know, coupled with a desire to connect with people lacking any clue how to do that socially.
In the end it's kind of fun to watch Gus point out that some conduct or other is against the law, and then watch him twist in the wind while he bloviates about it (and the conduct goes unpunished).
For me the weird part about it is that he seems to take sides against the very things he loves (law enforcement, guns, pomp and circumstance, etc.) I used to get upset when he would spit on a grave, or take a poopy in church and wipe it on the walls (metaphorically), now I just think .. that's Gus.
I am not sure what you take away from this page except he likes who he likes and he hates who he hates. If you want to guess who he hates just ask yourself who Gus wants to be when he grows up. He will hate that person be it the sheriff, a newspaper editor, etc.
If you want to guess who he likes find a person who has crapped his pants and is asking someone to clean it up where that someone is saying, "Clean it up yourself." Gus will jump in on the side of the person with the shitty britches and tell us about the injustice of it all.
As far as cross posters, I would think that the first amendment protects people with respect to their opinions (with limitations), I would think that Gus would not be responsible for publishing a third persons rant, as long as the rant was responsive to the original post. But I have done no research on the topic.
Post a Comment