State's Attorney blinks on Koziol

The following press release was issued by the McHenry County State's Attorney

PRESS RELEASE

December 18, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Deputy Sheriff Sergeant John Koziol brought forth allegations that Undersheriff Andrew Zinke committed a crime when he violated multiple General Orders of the McHenry County Sheriff.  The allegations were presented in a Petition, with a supporting sworn Affidavit, to appoint a Special Prosecutor.  It was filed in the McHenry County Circuit Court by and through his attorney, Jonathan D. Nye, on October 30, 2012, alleging that the violations of multiple general orders constituted the commission of Official Misconduct, a Class 3 Felony (720 ILCS 5/33-3) (b) (c) which carries a term in the Department of Corrections from two to five years and a maximum fine of $25,000.  Subsequently, on November 2, 2012, the Petition was heard before Judge Thomas Meyer and denied.  We immediately initiated an investigation and requested the Office of the State’s Attorney Appellate Prosecutor to make themselves available for assistance and/or consultation.

After an investigation and review, it is the conclusion of the State’s Attorney’s Office that even if all of the facts as set forth in Sergeant Koziol’s Petition and Affidavit were true (that is, the purported leaking of the DEA investigation by Undersheriff Zinke), such conduct is not illegal under Illinois law.  While some may consider the dissemination of what would appear to be highly confidential and sensitive information an alarming and problematic matter, such conduct does not violate the Official Misconduct Statute.  Accordingly, the question of whether the allegations were true and whether the information was disseminated is a question for Sheriff Nygren to investigate and make a determination.  In short, whether or not the Undersheriff violated the general orders of the Sheriff is a question for the Sheriff to resolve.

The Supreme Court of Illinois, in People v. Williams, 239 Ill.2d 119, 940 N.E.2d 50 (2010) made it clear that a police department’s rules and regulations (i.e. Sheriff’s General Orders) are not laws and therefore any violation of such rules do not and cannot support a charge of Official Misconduct.  In Williams, a police dispatcher was accused of leaking information to another person about a drug investigation.  The Supreme Court stated:  “[ ] we emphasize that our holding should not be interpreted as an approval of defendant’s conduct.  The conduct here is certainly troublesome and unjustifiable.  We hold that defendant did not commit the offense of official misconduct only because the confidentiality rules at issue here cannot be construed as ‘laws’ under the statute.”  Williams, 239 Ill.2d at 134.

McQueen wants out; Tonigan wants out. Who's left?

On April 26th Attorney Henry "Skip" Tonigan filed a motion to withdraw as Special Prosecutor in the case against sitting McHenry County State's Attorney Lou Bianchi. At that time, just two months ago, Tonigan claimed that his duties in caring for his 86-year-old father had "dramatically increased", as the Northwest Herald published.

He said that he wanted Attorney Thomas McQueen to replace him as Special Prosecutor and referred to McQueen as an investigator who had been appointed to assist him. Has a judge ever ruled on that motion? Has McQueen's role ever been elevated to that of Special Prosecutor?

Isn't Tonigan still "the" Special Prosecutor in the Bianchi case?

Yesterday McQueen filed a motion to withdraw, feeling threatened by Bianchi's attorney, Terry Ekl, who may be planning a lawsuit against McQueen for alleged misconduct in the Bianchi case.

How will the judge in the Bianchi case react when he reads yesterday's Daily Herald article that "Retired Lake County Circuit Judge Henry Tonigan III has been selected to lead an internal investigation about ethics complaints filed against officials at Grayslake Elementary District 46." (Read more: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110628/news/706289929/#ixzz1QfIGSuTA)

How is the senior Mr. Tonigan's health and need for increased care now?

Making matters worse is the pile of bills from the Special Prosecutor that still have not been paid. Did Tonigan have to pay Quest Consultants, Ltd., the investigations firm of ex-FBI agents that he hired, out of his own pocket, or is Quest willing to wait for Tonigan to get paid?

Tonigan should get paid for the work he has done and for that work which he contracted.. I seriously doubt that Tonigan is billing for any work that he did not do. If Judge Graham gave him, in effect, a blank check when he put him to work, then he should fill in the numbers now and order payment. Even if the County Board doesn't like it. Even if the taxpayers don't like it.

Maybe next time the County Board and the judge will figure out how not to issue blank checks.

Nobody else works for free in McHenry County. If you are going to order work and you don't intend to pay for it, then you need to say so, right up front!

That's all, folks

Just received an email about the conclusion of the Bianchi witch hunt and then read in the Northwest Herald that the judge ended the case after the prosecution rested.

Common sense prevailed in McHenry County, raising its seldom-seen head at 2200 N. Seminary Ave.

I just said to a friend yesterday that perhaps, now, the Office of the State's Attorney will have a little better understanding of how a defendant feels, since the forces of "justice" were slammed against their own heads.

Will the County pay for Lou Bianchi's defense costs?

I thought the whole charade was a joke. Except numerous felony charges are no joking matter. What do you suppose Bianchi's defense cost him? In dollars, I mean. The emotional cost will be much higher, even with the outcome as it is.

The prosecution of a person charged is a serious matter, and it must be so considered by all. When the State's Attorney's Office "wins" a case, it is no time for high five's or congratulatory handshakes in the courtroom. Obviously, I'm thinking of previous cases here.

Bianchi trial, Day 1 - what really happened

If you want to know what really happened on Day 1 of the Bianchi trial, go to the McHenry County Blog (www.mchenrycountyblog.com). Cal Skinner's hearing was "20/20", it appears.

Maybe the attorneys used podiums; maybe even microphones.

Here is one exchange that might better have drawn a long pause before the answer was given. Defense attorney Terry Ekl was at Tom Carroll's throat with,

Ekl: “Are you not concerned with not being charged with a crime because you did not believe you engaged in any illegal act?”
Carroll admitted trouble dealing with the double negative, so Ekl rephrased the question: “You don’t think you committed a crime, do you?”
“No,” Carroll replied."

I had to think twice or thrice and go over the question in my mind to figure out whether Tom Carroll intended to answer "Yes" or "No."

Was his answer meant to be, "Yes, I don't think I committed a crime"?

Or did he mean, "No, I don't think I committed a crime", which is apparently what he said.

Which is the double-negative that he said he was having trouble with. Did he get trapped into saying that he thought he had committed a crime? I suspect he wasn't saying that.

I'll bet that question didn't just roll off Ekl's lips and that he spent a fair amount of time crafting it for just that moment.

Carroll should have skipped the "Yes" or "No" in his answer. And if you are ever on trial, this might be a good rule for you, too.

NWH smears Bianchi (again)

Reporters write stories; editors write headlines. At least, so I was told in the not-to-distant past by a reporter for the Northwest Herald.

Did you see today's top headline (Page 1, upper right): "County picks up Bianchi's latest bill"?

As anyone around here with half a brain already knows, it is not Bianchi's bill that Judge Gordon Graham is sending to the County Board for payment. And which the County Board is rolling over on and paying after huffing and puffing (and then approving 18-1).

Tina Hill, District 5, got it right when she said, "The taxpayers of McHenry County are not a bottomless pit", either just before or just after she voted with the other 17 to approve the latest bill, $112,938.

And it wasn't Bianchi's bill that they approved. It was Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan's bill. Now his firm and he will have been paid $221,476, and Tonigan hasn't.even billed yet for September, October, November and December 2010. Tonigan's monthly average for June-August was $37,646; if that continues, then the County Board will get socked for another $150,000 ($37,646x4), bringing the total through December 31, 2010, to $371,500.

That's a pretty good deal when you are working for a government, isn't it? You get a $100,000 allowance; blow through it; spend $371,500, and get that!!!

About halfway through the article, I thought, "Maybe McHenry County should have a special prosecutor to investigate the special prosecutor." And then I read that that is exactly what Nick Provenzano had said. Was that during the County Board meeting or after?

Is Sandra Salgado the only County Board member with any common sense? Thanks, Sandra, for standing up for the People of McHenry County.

Did Tonigan just write out another "Pay Me" slip for Judge Graham's signature and hand it over the judge's desk? What would happen if the County Board refused to honor the blank check given by Judge Graham to Henry Tonigan? Is the County Board really under court order to pay? Was there a hearing where the County Board defended itself against Tonigan's claim? Or against Judge Graham's order? Does Judge Graham really have the authority to order the County to pay money it has not authorized?

Why do I doubt this? And why is the County Board paying without a fight?

Tonigan blows lid on "emergency funds"

Tonigan billings on Bianchi investigation:

$34,234 September-December 2009
$74.206.69 January-June 2010
$108,441

Of course, there is still July, August and September work to be billed.

The McHenry County Board authorized $100,000 from "emergency funds" for the work of a "special prosecutor" in the Bianchi case.

What "emergency"? I haven't heard the newspapers (or, more importantly, the public) asking just what exact "emergency" existed.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of government (or anyone else) claiming "emergency", when none exists.

Will Tonigan get paid any amount of $100,000? He shouldn't. Did he go back to the Board at the end of June and tell them he had blown through the $100K? Did he work during the past three months without any expectation of compensation for expenses or time?

A fifth-grader could see through many of the charges levied against Lou Bianchi.

Should Bianchi step aside while his case takes five years to wind through the court system?

No.

Open Letter to State's Attorney Bianchi

Dear Mr. Bianchi,

I am writing to call your attention to an unfair and expensive procedure, over which I understand your office might be able to exert some influence.

When the McHenry County Conservation District issues a ticket to a person found in an MCCD park after-hours, the ticket requires that person to appear before a judge, if he does not pay the $75.00 to MCCD within about 7-10 days.

A Guilty plea at the first court appearance results in an exorbitant amount of court costs and fees. On Monday the sum of $111.00 was assessed on top of the $75.00 fine.

The recipient of the ticket inquired before the court date about paying the $75.00 at the Payment Window of the courthouse and was told payment would not be accepted and that a court appearance was required.

Without disrespect to the court or to the judicial process, it seems reasonable to allow a first offender to pay the $75.00 before the court date. Perhaps a small "service fee" ($10.00?) could be added to pay for a clerk's time to accept payment, and probably few people would argue with that, understanding that they would be saving $100.00.

May I invite you to consider my request that the procedure for such petty offenses be changed to allow payment at the courthouse, in person or by mail, before a court date by those persons who intend not to contest the citation?

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Gus Philpott