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.

NWH uncovers origin of complaint

Don't miss Page 8C of this morning's Northwest Herald, in Jill Duchnowski's article about the contempt charge against former special prosecutor David O'Connor that may be heard tomorrow morning in Judge Condon's court.

I say "may be" because Continuances are too popular in all courts, including courts in McHenry County.

The contempt request in the Dalby case has to do with the alleged release of confidential Grand Jury testimony to the Illinois ARDC.

Here's the kicker from this morning's article, in which the reporter relates a comment made to her by Dalby's attorney, Wes Pribla.

"Pribla said he decided to file the contempt motion without consulting Dalby because he believed it was the right thing to do."

I read the Motion yesterday and should have bought a copy of it. As I recall, it says that Dalby believes O'Connor released the information, not that Pribla believed it. The issue for me is that this continues the legal matter involving Dalby, and the contempt accusation is filed in her name.

Now her attorney says she wasn't consulted?

Will O'Connor request that it be dismissed, because Dalby wasn't consulted about it? Will Dalby be in court tomorrow morning to support her petition? And will Judge Condon agree with O'Connor?

ISP responds to FOIA request (Dalby)

The response to my September 14th FOIA request to the Illinois State Police was received in today’s mail.

In my request I asked for documentation that would reveal the names of deputies of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who had possession of the flash drive onto which Dalby had transferred files from a computer in the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s office during her employment there or the information thereon.

The Illinois State Police Investigative Report dated November 26, 2007, of Sgt. Jim Harris and Special Agent Kristin Thien included Dalby’s remark that she had been advised in October 2007 that “…an african-american (sic) male who worked for the McHenry County Sheriffs Police Department by the name of “Cooper” now know as Michael Cooper would be stopping by her apartment to retrieve the flash drive…”

Dalby’s handwritten voluntary statement on November 26, 2007, includes “…the flash drive was given to a Mr. Cooper, I believe that was his name, he was a black man that was probably about 6 foot tall. I was told he had worked at one time for the Sheriff’s Department.”

The Illinois State Police obtained a wiretap order from McHenry County Judge Michael Caldwell, for the period January 22, 2008, until February 22, 2008.

On March 20, 2008, at about 4:40PM, ISP Sgt. Jim Harris and Special Agent T. Redic conducted a “state court authorized consensual, telephonic overhear” of a telephone call from Dalby to Cooper. The transcription of that call, in summary, is that Dalby informed Cooper that she had been contacted by the State Police. Cooper asked several times if Dalby had a name of the State Police investigator, and she told him that she thought it was Harris.

Cooper told Dalby that he still had the flash drive “as evidence” and told Dalby to give his (phone) number to the State Police. He added, “And then they can contact me directly, since I was a prior State Police. I should know who they are.”

Another ISP report, dated June 26, 2008, states that Sgt. Jim Harris spoke with Michael Cooper by telephone about a future meeting. Cooper told Sgt. Harris he had done nothing wrong and would be willing to speak with him on July 8, 2008.

Sgt. Harris’s report continued, “Cooper stated he was in possession of a thumb drive containing information that was downloaded out of the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office which he had locked up in a safety deposit box. R/A (Reporting Agent/Sgt. Harris) asked Cooper to bring the thumb drive with him the day of the meeting which Cooper agreed to surrender over.”

The FOIA response did not include any further mention of a meeting with Cooper.

An ISP report dated February 8, 2009, described a telephone call earlier that day which Dalby received from Rebecca Lee, with whom she had worked at the State’s Attorney’s Office. Lee told Dalby that she was Kristen Foley’s defense attorney on an unknown matter and told Dalby that a grand jury subpoena had been issued for Michael Cooper and James P. Kelly. Lee wanted to meet with Dalby, but Dalby told Sgt. Jim Harris that she did not anticipate ever calling" (Lee back).

The transcript of the Dalby sentencing hearing on June 1, 2009, includes the following statement by Special Prosecutor David O’Connor, “By way of additional aggravation, the flash drive that the Defendant (Dalby) gave the off-duty Sheriff’s Deputy that contained all the State’s Attorney computer data has now according to that off-duty Sheriff’s Deputy has allegedly been lost.”

Is Cooper the “Sheriff’s Deputy” mentioned by O’Connor? Is Cooper a deputy sheriff or is he employed by the Sheriff’s Department in another capacity? What happened to the flash drive that Cooper had in his safety deposit box?

State Police slow on FOIA Response

Ages ago, 'way back on September 11, I faxed a FOIA request to the Illinois State Police. Such requests used to go to a woman at the ISP, but now the Legal Office has taken over.

(I have some experience with legal offices. Too often when they get involved, you might as well set some extras clocks to running.)

When a FOIA Request is filed, an organization has seven (7) business days to respond. So, along about September 22, they should have a reply out the door to me. Adding a couple of days for the Pony Express to make the run up I-55, I should have had it no later than September 24. Adding a few more days for flooded rivers, tired horses and no coins for the tolls on the Tollway, should I have had a reply by October 1?

I already knew the rules of the game, before I called the Trooper who must have missed an important meeting and got stuck with phone duty to explain why replies were not going out. While an organization, such as the Illinois State Police, is supposed to send a letter acknowledging that they are missing the 7-day window and need 7 more days, he told me what I already knew. Failure to reply can be deemed a denial and, if I want to appeal, I should appeal to the Director of the State Police.

What was so important that a FOIA Request was sent to the Illinois State Police? Remember Amy Dalby?

In the transcript of her sentencing hearing were some important words, "Defendant gave an off-duty Sheriff's Deputy, who was working on behalf of the political campaign, the flash drive that contained all the data that was removed from the McHenry State's Attorney's Office."

Whoa! Wait a minute! A sheriff's deputy had possession of a flash drive containing stolen data?

Okay, so who is this deputy?

But there is more - "... at least two off-duty sheriff deputies working on behalf of the campaign play the role at various times in transferring this computer data to others for campaign related purposes."

So now there are two? Or, are there three deputies who came in contact with the stolen data? And didn't confiscate it? Or turn it in?

What I'm waiting for from the State Police are documents identifying these two or three deputies.

The Illinois State Police investigator must know the names. Does Sheriff Nygren know the names by now? Where are the charges? Will there be criminal charges? Departmental administrative charges?

Of course, we must remember how slowly justice can move in McHenry County. The sentencing hearing was June 1. This is October 5. Just a few ticks on the ol' clock.

Deputy had Dalby flash drive

The transcript of the June 1, 2009 sentencing hearing of Amy Dalby by Judge Joseph Condon in People v. Amy L. Dalby makes for some very interesting reading. She had already pled guilty to "computer tampering" and was in court for sentencing.

On Page 16 of the transcript Special Prosecutor David O'Connor, in addressing the Court, said, "It was at this meeting that the Defendant gave an off-duty Sheriff's deputy, who was working on behalf of the political campaign, the flash drive that contained all the data that was removed from the McHenry State's Attorney's office." And O'Connor said, "...the flash drive that the Defendant gave the off-duty Sheriff's Deputy that contained all the State's Attorney computer data has now according to that off-duty Sheriff's Deputy has (sic) allegedly been lost."

So, the unnamed deputy (weren't they nice to omit his or her name?) came into possession of information stolen from the State's Attorney's office in October 2007 at that DeKalb meeting (Dalby was a student at NIU) and he (or she) didn't turn it in?

The hearing transcript refers to 5,000 pages of data (Page 17) taken from the State's Attorney's office on that flash drive. If that deputy was working on the political campaign, it seems to me that he would have known or suspected what the flash drive contained, when it was given to him.

What kind of law enforcement do we have in McHenry County? Even the newest, youngest deputy ought to understand that possession of stolen information is a crime and that it is his obligation to turn over evidence in a crime that "happens" to come into his possession.

But wait! There was at least one more deputy involved. On Page 17 of the transcript, O'Connor continues, "To underscore that this has a lot more to do with politics rather than corruption was at least two off-duty sheriff deputies working on behalf of the campaign played the role at various times in transferring this computer data to others for campaign related purposes."

The claim throughout the hearing by Dalby's defense was that she did not know she was committing a crime by taking data off an office computer. O'Connor called that "disingenuous."

O'Connor was kind in court. Any third grader knows that you don't take things that don't belong to you.

Dalby got off easy when Judge Condon sentenced her to court supervision until June 1, 2010, a $400 fine and court costs. No community service. No other conditions. She doesn't even have to go back to court, if she is in compliance.

In compliance with what? Is there an "understanding" that compliance means staying out of trouble? What kind of "trouble"? But it wasn't defined by the court, as it often is. So it looks like all she has to do is pay her fine and court costs and keep breathing until June 1.

Will the two off-duty sheriff's deputies be identified? Will they be charged with possession of stolen material? Or will all this just fall off the radar screen?