Who is "the County"?

Being naturally curious about who "the County" was in the Petition filed last Thursday against Zane Seipler and his attorney, I went to the courthouse (well, okay; the "government center") today and read the Petition.

It is in Case No. 10MR000011, which is the case that Zane Seipler started in January 2010 about the sheriff's mis-use of County dollars for a seven-point "star" (badge) that he used for political purposes and also slapped on County vehicles, buildings and stationery. That "star" is referred to in documents as a LOGO (sic).

Judge Meyer ended Seipler's case with a decision that he (Judge Meyer) could not appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate Sheriff Keith Nygren. It was the State's Attorney's job to investigate, and the State's Attorney said he never considered it, because it would be unethical, since he represents the Office of the Sheriff. So the State's Attorney did not decide not to investigate Nygren; he told the Court he never considered the question of investigating Nygren.

Now, "the County" is asking for sanctions against Seipler and his Chicago attorney, Blake Horwitz.

Except it's getting hard to determine who "the County" is; i.e., who gave a green light to Caldwell Berner & Caldwell, LLC to file the Petition?

"The County" didn't; i.e., the County Board did not authorize Caldwell et al. to file that Petition. So, who did?

I started too late in the day to track down "the County" and was not able to reach Norm Vinton, Donna Kelly or Bill Caldwell.

The Petitioner ("the County) seems to be concerned about harassment of Sheriff Nygren and is requesting "that a sanction be entered for the time expended by the County's State's Attorney in responding to the five Petitions that have been filed." The Petition doesn't ask for reimbursement of the County's cost; it asks only for a sanction. So I guess that judge could just say, "Bad boy, bad boy."

It seems to me that one of County's big snowplows could be driven right through the Petition. Did it have to meet a minimum weight requirement when filed? Or a minimum number of pages? In one response it reads that the San Jose Police Department has been using a seven-point star since the late 1800s. So what???

In another section it mentions the FBI's letter (it was a strange one, indeed, and, in my mind, is highly suspect as to its authenticity) that Scott Milliman's allegations lack "prosecutive merit". Since when does the FBI issue such letters? Since when would it inform a subordinate of an investigative target of such a opinion?

The Petition also read "Plaintiff's allegations have been reviewed by multiple governmental agents. They include the F.B.I., the Attorney General's Office, the State Board of Elections, First Assistant State's Attorney Thomas Carroll and State's Attorney Donald Leist. All of these agencies have indicated that there is no prosecutive merit." It didn't mention that Carroll and Leist are no longer with the State's Attorney's Office or that Leist works for the Sheriff now.

Oh, really? All of them? In fact, any of them, other than the F.B.I.?

Horwitz is going to demolish this Petition, and I'll bet he will then turn around and go after the County.

So, my question is ... "Who is 'the County'?" Who turned Caldwell Berner & Caldwell loose on this? Who is paying for it?

Oh, and the Notice of Petition? No hearing date is requested. So, is the Petition just "I'll huff and I'll puff", but I won't see you in court?

Confusion reigns...

Yesterday Zane Seipler's petition for a Special Prosecutor to investigate McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren continued to make progress, with Judge Meyer dismissing motions to end the case and setting two hearing dates.

There seems to be a little confusion over the dates.

McHenry County Blog reports the next hearing date of April 11, 2012, as being for a request by Zane's attorney, Blake Horwitz, for sanctions against Woodstock attorney Mark Gummerson, who represents Keith Nygren personally (not in his official capacity as Sheriff).

The Northwest Herald reports that the April 11th date is the day when McHenry County State's Attorney Lou Bianchi may be quizzed in court about why he won't handle such a Special Prosecutor case against Nygren, who by law is his client.

However, the McHenry County Blog reports that Bianchi could be called on April 25 (not April 11), and the Northwest Herald story doesn't mention the April 25 court date.

Online court records indicate two upcoming dates for this case (10MR000011):
April 11, 2012, 1:30PM
April 25, 2012, 10:00AM

The Northwest Herald story doesn't mention the hearing on the sanctions against Gummerson.

On my next trip to the courthouse, I shall re-read Zane's petition for a Special Prosecutor. The Northwest Herald story says, "Deputy Zane Seipler has accused the sheriff of using a seven-point star for both political and official purposes. Nygren’s actions, Seipler’s attorney has said, amount to theft, official misconduct and misappropriation of funds."

This makes it sound like Zane is claiming one thing and then his attorney is "just" explaining it. If my memory serves me correctly, the Petition for Special Prosecutor asserts that Nygren's use of the badge ("star") of his own design for official purposes (stationery, on vehicles, on doors in the building, etc.) and also on his political campaign literature amounts to "theft, official misconduct and misappropriation of (County) funds."

It is this mis-use of taxpayer money that is at the heart of the Petition. Why won't the Northwest Herald report that?

Read the McHenry County Blog article for Blake Horwitz' opinion of the Northwest Herald's article about Zane Seipler's reinstatement as a Deputy Sheriff. Seipler returned to work on March 19, and he is due almost four years' back pay.

Special Prosecutor costs, if after Nygren

What will it cost McHenry County taxpayers, if Judge Meyer give a green light for appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate wrongdoing by McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren?

Taxpayers are reeling over the bills and anticipated future billings in the failed Special Prosecutor tag-team match of Tonigan/McQueen against Ekl.

County Board members are posturing now (elections are coming up, folks) to save face and cry over spilt milk. Why weren't they screaming bloody murder months and months ago? Why ever did they roll over and allow the blank check to the special prosecutors? What gives a judge the right to order unlimited spending of taxpayer dollars?

Why didn't the County Board say, a long time ago, "Here's $100,000. Go for it. Make it last. There won't be any more."

Remember this at election time, folks.

Now, what about the costs to go after Nygren? Read the following message on the website of Zane Seipler's Chicago attorney, Blake Horwitz: www.theblakehorwitzlawfirm.com/in-the-news-2/costs-special-prosecutor/

Racial profiling - is it? was it?

When will the issue of racial profiling at the McHenry County Sheriff's Department be put to rest? And how?

Will an outside, independent, trustworthy agency be brought in to investigate? Or will the sheriff's department investigate itself - again?

What will they find?

I remember the phone call I received one day after rollcall. "They told us, 'Just mark everybody down as white.'" Now that's a good way to end racial profiling, isn't it? Seems like some of the deputies did just that.

And I remember the statement to Judge Mahoney in Federal Court in Rockford by the sheriff's own attorney: "...Seipler was terminated for complaining about racial profiling."

Now we all know how I have complained about not being able to hear so well in McHenry County Courtrooms. Could I have "mis-heard" in Rockford? Let's see what the transcript of that fateful day in Rockford has to say:

"MS. BARTON: Because Mr. Seipler was terminated for complaining about racial profiling. ..." [Page 6, Lines 21-22]

Well, I guess the way I wrote it down right in front of Judge Mahoney was pretty accurate; right?

How many investigations were there at the sheriff's department into racial profiling, before and during the early parts of Zane Seipler's civil rights lawsuit against the Sheriff and the Department? Three?

If there is a "current" investigation, could it possibly come up with any other result than "No racial profiling"? If it did, how would they ever explain away the results of the first three "investigations"?

Wait! Breaking News: SEE http://dailyherald.com/article/20110525/news/705259788/  The Sheriff says there is no racial profiling. Four deputies just "mis-marked" citations.

Oh, my. Thank goodness...  Somehow, I think this isn't the end of things...

I'm reading an interesting book right now - Hoodwinked, by Jack Cashill. On January 24, 1980, author and progressive Mary McCarthy was a guest on The Dick Cavett Show. She had this to say about Lillian Hellman, as she answered a question from Cavett about her accusation that Hellman was "tremendously overrated, a bad writer, and a dishonest writer." She added, "I said once in some interview that every word she (Hellman) writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" (Hoodwinked, by Jack Cashill. pp. 37-40, Nelson Currant, Nashville, Tenn.)

Sheriff wastes over $300,000

According to the Northwest Herald this morning, the McHenry County Sheriff's Department is finally squaring up with Deputy Bob Schlenkert, and it's costing the Sheriff's Department over $300,000 to do so.

Schlenkert is to receive $185,684 in back wages for the period September 13, 2007 to April 12, 2010, plus $5,646.12 for medical expense reimbursement. That's $191,000+. Estimating the cost of the Sheriff's wasteful legal actions at another $100,000 and the possibility that the sheriff's department might have to pay Schlenkert's legal costs, the Department wasted over $300,000.

The Northwest Herald said, "Because Schlenkert's position was held open, his pay already was part of the office's budget." The newspaper article attempted to minimize the outlay, for people who just read the first paragraph of a story, by first reporting it as "$130,000 in lost wages," because Schlenkert must reimburse IDES for $51,764 unemployment pay he received.

Does that mean that the sheriff expected to lose? If the position was "held open", does that mean that the County did without a deputy on patrol in that position? If it doesn't mean that, then where did the money come from to pay for the replacement deputy who filled in for Schlenkert? And was that deputy laid off, when Schlenkert returned to duty?

Taxpayers should keep in mind that at least two other deputies are cooling their heels and expect to win back their positions. Zane Seipler has won legal actions before an arbitrator and a McHenry County judge. Yet Sheriff Nygren continues to fight an uphill battle and has his outside lawyers in Elgin now, hoping for a victory in the Appellate Court. When he loses there, will he head for the Illinois Supreme Court and waste more taxpayer dollars?

And Deputy Scott Milliman, who was paid while on administrative leave, is now off pay status. Yet the sheriff hasn't fired him. He had taken him off active duty and then stopped paying him.

Now, how does this work in the wonderful world of HR rules? Can you just send somebody home, pay him for a while, then stop paying him, but never tell him that you are firing him? Seems like this should have been presented to the Merit Commission a long time ago?

Milliman ought to show back up at the office, dressed for duty and ready to go to work. Otherwise, the sheriff might say that Milliman didn't come to work, so he is letting him go. Milliman would have a problem now dressing for work, because the Department recently confiscated his uniforms.

Maybe the battery is dead in the sheriff's cell phone and he can't be reached to make decisions. Why doesn't Undersheriff Zinke take action? Isn't he in charge when the sheriff is on vacation and out of the country? Of course, it could be hazardous to his own position, if he made an independent decision to go against his boss's (wrong) decisions.

Is the Undersheriff even around? Last week I sent an email to him and also to the general email address for the sheriff? It was a politely-worded request about an incomplete press release, but no one had the courtesy of replying.

Latest motion not very polite about sheriff

When I was in Rockford at the U.S. District Court today, I looked through the documents in Zane Seipler's case. What did I find?

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF.

On February 28, 2011, McHenry County Sheriff's Deputy Scott Milliman filed, through his lawyer, a request to seal the psychological report prepared by a psychologist associated with Rush University Medical Center.

The Emergency Motion contains, in part, the following statements: "Deputy Milliman made several statements under oath in the November 23, 2010, deposition that implicated Sheriff Nygren in criminal activity."

"Defendant Nygren, or those associated with him, released a copy of the Milliman deposition to third parties, including the Northwest Herald Newspaper, and offered slanderous opinions of Deputy Milliman (referencing Sesame Street characters) which were later repeated in the Northwest Herald and throughout the internet."

"Recently, Sheriff Nygren, pursuant to Deputy Milliman's employment contact, ordered Deputy Milliman to undergo a psychological evaluation. This evaluation took place on February 12, 2011. Prior to the evaluation taking place and unbeknownst to Deputy Milliman, his counsel, or any other parties involved in this matter, Lieutenant Miller, Sheriff Nygren's personal assistant and a named defendant in this matter, provided the psychologist with a copy of the Milliman deposition. The transcript was provided to the psychologist in direct contravention of this Court's April 7, 2009, protective order. ... Based on this behavior, it is counsel's belief that the Defendants in this matter are unable to abide by this Court's protective orders."

What did Judge Mahoney decide?

Judge Mahoney entered a contingent protective order as to the psychological report. It is to be considered a confidential document. The report is for "attorney's eyes only" and is to be disseminated only to counsel of record. If the report is filed with the court, it is to be filed under seal.

Court asked to hold Nygren in Contempt

In a filing with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Western Division (in Rockford (Ill.)) Zane Seipler's attorney has asked the Court to hold McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren and MCSD Lt. John Miller in contempt of court for releasing copies of a confidential, protected deposition to non-parties of the case.

The court document filed by Attorney Blake Horwitz reads, in part, "Defendant Nygren invited non-party Jose Rivera to review the transcript (Def Resp., Exhibit G, Nygren Affidavit, para. 5-6) and Zinke gave the transcript to Rivera at Mr. Nygren's request. (Zinke, Id., para 5-6)". Rivera is a Crystal Lake (Ill.) businessowner and friend of Sheriff Nygren.

According to the filing, "The three non-parties who received a copy of the transcript are Under Sheriff Zinke, Sgt. Ellis and Jose Rivera."

Horwitz is also attempting to obtain an affidavit from Jose Rivera as to whom he may have given a copy of Milliman's deposition. In other words, how did the Northwest Herald end up with a copy of it?

The document states that Lt. Miller gave a copy of the deposition to non-party Sgt. Ellis.

The document also refers to data, in the form of 5,239 new tickets containing descriptions of drivers' race, that were not provided by the Sheriff's Department until January 2011. These data were provided last month, rather than with original responses in 2010. A second investigation into racial profiling is now underway at the McHenry County Sheriff's Department, where Sheriff Nygren said last year there was no evidence of racial profiling.

A hearing is scheduled in Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney's courtroom in the United States District Court in Rockford for Wednesday, February 16, at 2:00PM.

Federal case against MCSD heats up

New Motions were filed last week in Rockford in the case of Seipler v. Cundiff, et al.* These motions were for sanctions against the defendants and ask the Court for and their counsel for a variety of causes, including repeated delays in depositions, failing to tender data related to more than 5,000 traffic stops, providing false data to the Plaintiff and refusing to reproduce the Defendants for further depositions.

Seipler is also asking the Court to order payment of certain attorneys’ expenses that have been incurred because of false data provided by the Defendants.

Seipler also informs the Court that Defendants have released data bound by Protective Order, which was not to be released to non-parties to the court action; ex., the confidential deposition of Deputy Scott Milliman. (The Northwest Herald obtained a copy.)

Seipler, through his attorney, also asks the Court to require the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department to produce photographs of numerous individuals who were issued tickets in 2007 and 2008 by Deputies Jeremy Bruketta, Christopher Jones and Michelle Stevens.

The Court is also informed that 51 officers (sic) (meaning deputies) “are now being investigated for racial profiling.”

Attachment A lists tickets issued to people who are most likely Hispanics but who were recorded as being White.

In 2007, Deputy Bruketta – 60

In 2007, Deputy Matthew Matusek - 35

In 2008, Deputy Erin Falb - 77

In 2008, Deputy Bruketta - 241

* The Defendants in this case are Capt. Anton Cundiff, Lt. John Miller #1431, Lt. William Lutz, Sgt. Popovitz, Kathleen Seith (Equal Employment Opportunity officer), Keith Nygren, as Sheriff and individually, and the County of McHenry.

NWH - Creative Writing 101

About ninety minutes ago an article was published on the Northwest Herald website that definitely was not "news." What's a newspaper for? It is to publish "news"; right?

When it publishes "opinion" or an editorial or another work of fiction and innuendo, should it be so labeled? And clearly labeled? This morning's article is set up to look like any other "news" article.

Penned by Kevin Lyons, News Editor at the Northwest Herald, much of it seems to be opinion based on a 200-page deposition given by Scott Milliman in November. Very limited reference was made to Milliman's sworn testimony (depositions are taken under oath) in a December 15th hearing in Federal Court in Rockford, during a hearing in one of Zane Seipler's cases involving the McHenry County Sheriff's Department.

I had been under the impression that depositions were not public. In fact, a court reporter's transcript of the December 15 hearing contains this statement by the sheriff's attorney, James Sotos, "Depositions are not public."

The headline of Kevin's article is "Was sheriff gonna (sic) whack Big Bird, too?" Editors, not reporters, create the headlines. Did Kevin write his own headline?

If the Northwest Herald did a better job of investigating and then reporting facts, and leaving it up to readers to make their own decisions, I think their readership and subscriptions would boom. As it is, they are crashing.

I know that I dropped my own monthly subscription because of their opinionated reporting.

The Northwest Herald seems to be clearly on the side of the incumbent sheriff. A newspaper should not take "sides." Just report the news, the facts. If editors have opinions, put them only on the editorial page. The first sentence in the article was enough to turn me off: "So I guess the good news about being on the sheriff’s hit list is that you have a 50/50 shot at still being alive, possibly operating an inane blog or dead of natural causes."

Is this opinion? "Inane" blog? And when I read "dead of natural causes", I couldn't help thinking of Drew Peterson's third wife, who was found dead in a dry bathtub. Wasn't the first cause of death identified as drowning? Did the Coroner just not see the injury on the back of her head? After her body was exhumed and further examined, wasn't the cause of death changed?

Lyons labeled Milliman's deposition testimony as "bizarre", Dave Bachmann as "McHenry County's most prolific conspiracy theorist", then refers to Bachmann as a "person of little consequence", and then he delivers a career-ending blow to the man he, up until that point, has favored.

On what might have been an afternoon meeting at Vaughan's Restaurant in Woodstock on September 17, 2009, concluding about 4:35PM (a little early for a broasted chicken dinner), Milliman said Nygren wanted him, according to the newspaper article (based on the deposition), "to get petition signatures for (his) campaign."

AH-HA!!! Political activity during working hours!

There's a good reason why I remember that date and time. And the Woodstock Police Department documented it.

Judge unhappy with false race entries

Read today's excerpt of the December 15th hearing in U.S. Federal Court in Rockford in the Seipler v. Cundiff et al. case on www.mchenrycountyblog.com/

In the excerpt published today Judge Mahoney asks Nygren's attorney, James Sotos, whether he is supposed to be happy with a large number of tickets on which drivers were recorded as Caucasian, when they apparently were not.

"THE COURT: What am I supposed to with somebody that misidentifies 140 individuals as Caucasian?

"MR. SOTOS: Judge, I got –

"THE COURT: Am I supposed to be happy with that?

"MR. SOTOS: Well, Judge, you know what? I’m not happy with that, but that’s not — "

Who was the McHenry County Sheriff's Department deputy being referred to as "somebody"? Is he Deputy Bruketta, who is mentioned moments later?

Judge Mahoney is trying to push this two-year-old case to trial. He shortened the leash on the attorneys by restricting time for completion of depositions, some of which were started but not finished. After you read the excerpts, you may wish to allow an hour and go back and start at the beginning to get the full picture of what went on in court that day.

What happened in Rockford Fed. Court on Dec. 15?

OK, get out your reading glasses, polish 'em up, and move on over to www.mchenrycountyblog.com, where you can start reading the transcript of a hearing in Judge P. Michael Mahoney's court in Rockford on December 15 in the case of Seipler v. Cundiff et al. Cal will be posting the 48-page transcript in parts, due to its length.

You do know what et al. means, right? It's sort of like "etc."; in this case, it means all the other defendants, not just Anton Cundiff by himself.

This is Zane Seipler's civil rights case against the McHenry County Sheriff's Department that was filed in 2008. (This is not his employment case, which has been upheld in Zane's favor twice (by the arbitrator and then by Judge Meyer) and is now to be dragged further through the courts with an appeal by Sheriff Nygren.)

It is my belief that Zane was tossed out of the Sheriff's Department because he was a whistleblower. If he hadn't been a whistleblower, he probably would have initially gotten a three-day suspension, and we never would have heard a word about it.

So now it's on the Court record about racial profiling and "mis-coding" of traffic tickets by two deputies. What's mis-coding? That's when you put down White or Caucasian as the race for a driver whose name is Sanchez or Mendez or Villalobos. And not just once. Maybe 10-20-100-200 or more times.

Remember when I wrote a while back that I was told that deputies were instructed in rollcall that they could solve the Department's racial profiling complaints by just "marking everybody down as White"?

As will be shown on further pages of the hearing transcript to be published, there were two spreadsheets for tickets. And they weren't identical.

But wait until you see the rest of the transcript, which names names. Somehow, I think the attorney who stands up in Court and tells a judge that so-and-so did such-and-such is not going to make any baseless accusations.

Now, if you are a boss, what do you do with a whistleblower? Just wait until you hear the latest, which has occurred since the transcript became public.

Philpott files petitions for Sheriff

Gus Philpott (that's me; errrr, that is I) filed petitions today as a candidate for the office of Sheriff of McHenry County.

So that puts four hats in the ring, three of which will be on heads in the General Election.

But first, there is the Primary Election on February 2, 2010.

The first "race" will be in the Republican Party, where Zane Seipler will be working hard to oust the incumbent sheriff, Keith Nygren, from the November 2010 General Election ballot. He can do that by winning the Primary on February 2.

If you are ready for a change from the past 12 years, then you'll want to pull a Republican ballot on February 2 and vote for Zane. That's the first race. (We'll talk about the next race on February 3.)

And there may not even be the expected Republican choice in February, because even before the February 2nd Primary, there is a challenge period following the close of the filing period on November 2 (Monday).

This challenge period is going to be lively, and it already appears that a real challenge will develop against the forms submitted by one of the Republican candidates.