Residents, shake your heads

I dare you to read today's Northwest Herald story about the deposition of McHenry County State's Attorney Lou Bianchi and understand what's really going on. Don't speed-read it; slow down. Take it one sentence at a time. You might even start a flowchart or other outline.

At the outset, let me state that I like Lou Bianchi. I like Donna Kelly. And I like Zane Seipler and Blake Horwitz.

Sheriff Nygren? That's another story. Until he pulled that dumb stunt in the Jewel-Osco parking lot (and, as I later learned, lied and told people that I had been following him around that day). If he told the Woodstock Police that lie, then he made a false report to police. I was at a conference at MCC all day.

I didn't particularly dislike him up to that point. I didn't like many of the things he had done, but my dislike didn't move to a personal level until his stupid act that afternoon in the parking lot. I later learned that something very significant in another case may have happened to set him off shortly before he pulled up alongside me in the parking lot.

Back to the recent deposition. Bianchi has been unwilling to take on a role in which he might have to investigate and prosecute Nygren. A blind man could see that the State's Attorney can't prosecute the Sheriff, who is his client. It's clear-cut. If a sheriff is believed to have committed crimes, then a special prosecutor is needed.

A book could be written just from the Northwest Herald reporter story today. First of all, look where the editors put it. Section B. Not even on the front page! This petition (Case 10MR000011) for a prosecutor is almost two years old. Stalling tactics would have bankrupted many petitioners, causing them to abandon their cases. But Seipler and Horowitz have hung in there, fighting against the bottomless pit of County dollars.

I know that I need to read the deposition itself and not rely on the Northwest Herald article. Why is that? For example, the article reads, "Instead, (in the deposition) Bianchi said he made the decision not to investigate the sheriff in order to save money through in-house handling of cases involving Nygren's office, rather than hiring private attorneys."

If that's what he really said, it doesn't make any sense at all. Were these words carefully crafted (as attorneys are trained to do), so that a whole sentence could be uttered and be meaningless? I've read that sentence several times. It didn't make any more sense the last time than it did the first time!

Then Bianchi is quoted as saying "I don't want to jeopardize our (the State's Attorney's Office (SAO)) successful representation of the Sheriff ..."

Does that mean that, if the SAO investigated the Sheriff and found wrong-doing (and then had to prosecute the Sheriff), many old cases would be at risk for review and possibly new/different decisions?

For example, what if, during an investigation, it turned out that Nygren wasn't even eligible to hold office and then the case would be that McHenry County had had no elected Sheriff for years? Would every defense attorney run to a judge and ask for convictions of his clients to be vacated, because deputies had had no duly-appointed supervisor (sheriff) and therefore couldn't arrest or otherwise act?

Finally (for this article), look at this carefully-crafted statement, as quoted in the paper today, "We don't have any specific written policy or unwritten that says in this case we're not going to [investigate the sheriff]."

Why was "unwritten" placed after policy, rather than before it? And look at the words "in this case". Every planned word coming out of a lawyer's mouth is important. The choice of words is important. The order of the wording is important.

What will happen on December 22 at 10:00AM in Judge Meyer's courtroom? Let's hope he puts a stop to this nonsense and grants Seipler's request for a Special Prosecutor.

And then what will happen? Will Nygren resign, head south to Cape Coral and hope this all blows over if he is no longer Sheriff?

Caldwell in, Gummerson out

What did last Tuesday's hearing in Judge Meyer's court really mean? The one about Zane Seipler's petition for a special prosecutor to investigate Sheriff Keith Nygren.

Here is one guy standing up and putting his money where his mouth is. How many around here to do that? Remember back when Zane filed the first petition? He did so pro se; that is, without an attorney. Pretty quickly he realized that he was going to need an attorney, or his petition would grind to a halt. And so he got an attorney - a good one. Chicago Attorney Blake Horwitz has kept this petition alive, continually filing amended petitions as new information came to light.

I don't know what it has cost Zane so far - my guess is that the legal bill is $70,-100,000 - so far.

There were many court dates when Judge Meyer could have ended Seipler's petition. My experience from being in his courtroom often was that he was looking for every opportunity not to stop it.

The State's Attorney doesn't want to investigate Nygren, saying that he is the sheriff's attorney which, legally, he is. In that position there seems to me to be a clear conflict of interest. And so a Special Prosecutor should be appointed.

The latest step was for the State's Attorney to pull Assistant State's Attorney Don Leist out of the picture, with the result on Tuesday, October 11, that Judge Meyer appointed Woodstock attorney Bill Caldwell to represent the County of McHenry.

Nygren had countered with his own petition late last week, asking that Caldwell not be appointed and asking for the Court to appoint Woodstock attorney Mark Gummerson to represent him "in his official capacity", meaning that the County would pay Gummerson to represent Nygren. Judge Meyer put the kabosh on that by appointing Caldwell to represent the County and refusing to appoint Gummerson as Nygren's taxpayer-supported counsel.

Now, who represents Nygren? Isn't the Sheriff's Department part of the County of McHenry? Opinions outside the courthouse seem to be divided as to whether Bill Caldwell will represent Nygren and the County. If the County and Nygren are at odds, then Caldwell might have a hard time representing both.

I am reminded of the situation in which robbers hit a bank and get arrested. Should they have the same attorney? Even a "Bonnie and Clyde" team? Should they make do with one attorney or should each have his own attorney? I say, separate attorneys. Of course, in our wonderful country you can get only as much justice as you can afford.

It seems to me that Judge Meyer, in appointing Bill Caldwell to represent the County and refusing outside, County-paid, legal services to Nygren as Sheriff, was saying that Caldwell will represent the Sheriff in this case.

Now, aren't they both Republicans? Do they like one another?

But what about the conflict of interest? Seipler's petition claims that Nygren has spent thousands of dollars, wrongfully, to plaster his political badge all over County equipment, property and stationery. How could the same attorney (Caldwell) defend and prosecute Nygren? He can't.

That's why a Special Prosecutor is demanded in this case. And why Judge Meyer should appoint one.

There is no special prosecutor "game"

This morning's editorial in the Northwest Herald reads, "End special prosecutor game soon."

The special-prosecutor request isn't a "game".The County Board lost control of the checkbook, when it decided it had to pay the first bill submitted by Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan in what turned out to be the failed prosecution of McHenry County State's Attorney Lou Bianchi. It was like handing a no-limit American Express card to Judge Graham. Why in the world the Board continued to approve a near-endless stream of billings, we'll probably never know.

And what about the still-unbilled time and expenses of Attorneys Tonigan and McQueen in that case? They should have billed monthly from the start. And now? They should bill the balance "Net 30" and then sue McHenry County for payment.

Read the "For the record" that accompanies today's editorial carefully. Here's what the paper published: "Taxpayers should not fund a special investigation into whether Sheriff Keith Nygren is appropriately using a star for political and official purposes."

The editors can relax. That's not what the request for a special prosecutor is for. Here is what it is for:

"... a special investigation into whether Sheriff Keith Nygren is inappropriately using a star for political and official purposes." And it's not even for that.

The Northwest Herald editors think that Sheriff Keith Nygren shouldn't be investigated by a Special Prosecutor. County Board Chairman Ken Koehler says it's "baloney." No, Ken; it's not. And the Northwest Herald editors are wrong, if they think that Seipler and Nygren are the only people who care about the petition for a special prosecutor.

Almost everyone has known from the start that the State's Attorney's office couldn't go after Nygren. Why not? Because they are the legal representative of the Sheriff. A 5th Grader could figure out that a lawyer can't defend a client in one case and turn around and sue him in another. Well, duh... It's called Conflict of Interest. That's probably covered in the first year of law school.

The editors have apparently not read the petition on which Judge Meyer is expected to rule soon. If they had, they would know it's not about a "seven-point" star (badge). It's about the mis-use of thousands of dollars of County money to plaster that star, which is Keith's own design resembling the official emblem of the office, all over County property.

Frankly, that petition ought to be amended yet again, this time to include the cases where the Sheriff (and the sheriff's department) have chosen the path of "administrative review" involving misdeeds of deputies, instead of criminal charges, and violations of the State's criminal code.

And today's winner is ... Zane Seipler

Case No. 10MR000011 was scheduled for decision this morning. This is Zane Seipler's request for a Special Prosecutor. In a hallway conversation with a long-time McHenry County attorney (one not involved in the case) before court, he clearly felt that Seipler would not prevail.

In a long and drawn-out battle over whether a special prosecutor will be appointed to investigate and prosecute McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren for criminal conduct, Judge Thomas A. Meyer has decided that the battle will continue. While Judge Meyer did not today grant the request for a Special Prosecutor, he put a stop to the near-endless round of courtroom fights and granted Seipler's request as it pertained to Paragraphs 1-30 and 66-78. Those stay in. Paragraphs 31-65 were stricken.

It would have been nice to hear everything that was said in the courtroom today. See a separate article about the lack of decorum in today's courtroom.

Seipler's attorney, Blake Horwitz of Chicago, has 14 days to file a document, and then Donald Leist, Assistant McHenry County State's Attorney, has 28 days to respond.  The next court date is September 22nd at 9:00AM in Courtroom 201, the chambers of Judge Meyer.

The bottom line seems to be that the alleged facts about Sheriff Nygren's use of County taxpayer-supported assets for political purposes are sufficient for a cause of action to continue. There are viable claims. Today's decision was about about those claims, only that they are viable. Now discovery will begin.

According to Blake Horwitz after court, the February 2011 letter from State's Attorney Lou Bianchi that the State's Attorney can only defend the sheriff is evidence of the inability and unavailability of the State's Attorney's Office to investigate or prosecute criminal conduct by Sheriff Nygren, if any.

It was a long road for Zane Seipler and Blake Horwitz. During many of the hearings it appeared to me that Judge Meyer was wanting to keep in case moving. There were many opportunities where he could have ruled and shut it down.

Chicago Tribune editorializes on MCSD

Look at what Sheriff Nygren's attorney, James Sotos, told the Chicago Tribune: "The sheriff is committed to ensuring that there is no racial profiling at the sheriff's department."

Look at, and understand, the words. Lawyers are good at using a lot of words so that people really don't understand what is being said. Is this a classic example?

He didn't say, "There isn't acial profiling." He didn't say, "There will not be racial profiling." What he said was, "The sheriff is committed to ensuring ..." That's not the same thing. That's a statement that is not measurable and attaches no accountability. How do you measure commitment?

You can read Tuesday's editorial in the Chicago Tribune right here: www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-profiling-20110329,0,5937494.story

The Tribune has this to say about "mislabeling" in the McHenry County Sheriff's Department: "In 2006, 1 in 8 likely Hispanics who were ticketed in McHenry was labeled as white or was not logged. By 2009, the Tribune reported, the error rate had spiked to 1 in 3."

But remember that Sheriff Nygren confidently announced that his (first) investigation revealed no profiling. And so did the second. Only after a smart, out-of-McHenry-County (read, Chicago Loop) attorney got involved did the profiling bubble up to the surface where it counted - in Federal Court.

Why did Zane Seipler go to Chicago for an attorney? Why did Jerome Pavin go to Chicago for an attorney? Why did the Estate of David Maxson go to Chicago for an attorney?

Heck, why did Sheriff Nygren go out of McHenry County for an attorney?

First time to see "vastare"

Thanks to Cal Skinner's blog at http://www.mchenrycountyblog.com/ today I now know the anonymous screen name "vastare". I read Cal's article about how the County's legal fees of Defendants are being paid to the law firm of James Sotos. Those fees, over $400,000 (so far), in Zane Seipler's civil rights against several command deputies, the sheriff individually and as Sheriff, the sheriff's department and the County, are covered under an excess-liability insurance policy with a $100,000 deductible.

There is a link in Cal's article to a February 15th article he wrote, and it is there that there are several comments by someone writing as "vastare". Until today I had never, to my recollection, seen that name. Why do I write this? Because I told an attorney at Sotos' law firm last week that I had never seen the name "vastare". And, on that date, that was true. Now I've seen it. Now being today, Sunday, March 20, 2011, at 8:25AM.

I know they read my blog, because several articles are appended to their Response to my Motion to Quash their subpoena. In that subpoena they demanded documents for a 27-month period that include communications from "any former and/or current employee of the McHenry County Sheriff's Department". How many people could that be? Aren't there over 400 employees (deputies, corrections officers, office employees)? How many "former" employees are there?

By "former employees" do they mean those, if any, who were no longer employees by November 1, 2008, but who contacted me during the 27-month period? Or do they mean those who became "former employees" during the 27-month period and then contacted me, if any.

When subpoenas aren't clear, it is certainly impossible to respond to them.

As I told the attorney at Sotos's office, I haven't even begun to look. I had only three days from receipt of the subpoena to the production date, and I filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena two days later. So the issue is dead until the judge decides on my Motion.

Now that I've read "vastare's" comments, I wish that person had sent comments to my blog but, so far as I know, that person never did. They seem right on the money to me. If you'd like to read them, go to Cal's article titled "Township Governments Get Risk Management Dividend" and then click on the link there in the third paragraph.

Now I can see why Sotos' firm has gone fishing to try to learn that writer's identity. Don't they know that, when a writer sends an anonymous comment using a fictitious screen name, we don't know who the author is?

Will Nygren take it to the Appellate Court?

Will Zane Seipler go back to work at the McHenry County Sheriff's Department (MCSD)?

Sheriff Nygren didn't like the arbitrator's decision that Seipler should have been disciplined with three days off. You'll recall that Nygren fired Zane. Some think it was retaliation for Zane's blowing the whistle on racial profiling at MCSD. Funny how racial profiling is back in the spotlight at MCSD now.

So Nygren appealed the arbitrator's ruling and headed for Circuit Court in Woodstock. He didn't have to go far; just down the hallway.

Then Sheriff Nygren didn't like Judge Meyer's decision about the arbitrator, when the judge ruled against Nygren.

So what will happen now? Nygren probably has a certain number of days to file an appeal with the Illinois Appellate Court Second District, in Elgin.

Will he roll the dice again?

You know - it's easy to stay in Las Vegas, if you are burning through OPM. If he was burning through his own $250K from the sale of his house in Hebron on December 3, would he stay at the tables? What are the lines from the familiar, old song? "You have to know when to hold 'em; you have to know when to fold 'em?" You don't have to fold, if you aren't playing with your own dough.

No doubt he remembers the recent experience in the Appellate Court, when the judges ruled after a very short time (a couple of days) that the Sheriff had to put Deputy Schlenkert back to work. It's too bad that Schlenkert's attorney didn't ask the Appellate judges for a deadline on payment of the back pay owed to Schlenkert. Has he been paid yet?

If the case does go to the Appellate Court, let's hope that Zane's lawyer shuts that door by asking the judges to order the sheriff to pay Seipler all his back wages within 30 days.

Will Sheriff reinstate Seipler?

Yesterday in McHenry County Circuit Court a judge ruled* that Zane Seipler should be reinstated immediately by McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren.

Will it happen?

Doesn't Nygren have an appeal pending in the Appellate Court in Elgin? If so, for what date is that case scheduled?

No information other than the decision appears on Zane's blog at http://www.mcsdexposed.blogspot.com/. If Nygren obeys the judge's ruling, then Zane will go back to work and receive all his back pay. I hope the judge's ruling included a short deadline for payment of all back pay.

If Zane's lawyer didn't get a "pay-by" date from the judge, the sheriff will pull the same nonsense he has with another deputy; i.e., contesting the calculations and amount due and paying nothing until the new batteries for the calculator are delivered. Unfortunately, the calculator has been on the shelf so long that it is obsolete, and no store carries replacement batteries. (Hint: BestBuy sells a nice electronic, printing calculator, new, for about $60.00.)

The other deputy is owed about $200,000, and the tab to square up with Zane could come close to that. So that's a half-million dollars, by the time you add in other obligated payments, that MCSD has wasted through the stalling tactics of the recently-reelected incumbent.

* Oh, wait; I just read the "fine print" at the bottom of Zane's homepage. It reads, "No, not really, the hearing is scheduled for January 20, 2011."

And, in a message clearly intended for Sheriff Nygren and his staunch supporters, Zane added, "I just wanted some of you to experience that sinking feeling in your stomach, so you know what to expect in the near future."

Who started what?

A reader sent me today a long list of programs that have existed at the sheriff's department in McHenry County over the years. He questioned the current claims of who started what.

I remember trying to get information several years ago about the McHenry County Anti-Gang Task Force. When I called the sheriff's department for information, they acted like they had never heard of it. Sure wish I'd saved the name of the person who told me it didn't exist. I knew that it had existed; otherwise, why would I have had the name of it?

Now it's back, but with a new name.

You can check out the reader's long list of comments, which I forwarded to Zane and he posted on his campaign blog at www.MCSDExposed.com

Zane's ad in the Sunday NWH

Just in case you missed Zane's ad in the Northwest Herald today.

We Know We're The Underdog

WE ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF VOTERS IN MCHENRY COUNTY WHO ARE WEARY OF INCUMBENT KEITH NYGREN.

Informed citizens, local business and government leaders, have long known about Keith Nygren’s questionable judgment, behavior and the atmosphere of intimidation he has created within the Sheriff’s Department. The harsh tactics he has foisted on many private citizens are well known throughout the County.

People tell us that, until now, they felt they had no option other than tolerate a man who has, over a period of too many years, learned to “work” the system.

People wonder how Mr. Nygren somehow manages to afford and maintain three homes . . . in three different states. Most voters are unaware that Sheriff Nygren spends an inordinate amount of time in Florida, where his wife is a full-time resident. In fact, the Nygren’s home is recognized by the State of Florida as housing permanent residents. As a result, Florida has issued a $50,000 Homestead Tax Exemption, as the Nygrens seemingly “work” the system from both ends.

Evidence suggests that Mr. Nygren travels to his Florida home on a more or less regular basis. Official disclosure records indicate that the Nygrens have spent hundreds of campaign donation dollars, in upscale Florida restaurants. (Mr. Nygren also spends time at his Minocqua, Wisconsin home where official records show that the Nygrens enjoy meals at Chy’s Red Steer Super Club, also funded by campaign contributions.) Instead of performing his day-to-day duties, at his desk here in McHenry County, he is apparently living a life of leisure under the Florida sun. It’s time to elect a full-time Sheriff who lives in McHenry County.

At age 36, I am at times questioned about my experience. It’s a little known fact that I am four years older than Keith Nygren was when, at 32, he attempted his first bid for Sheriff, as a Democrat.

I’m inspired knowing Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence at age 33. Of course, I make no claim to be Thomas Jefferson. However, I am fully qualified and well-prepared to serve. I have spent 14 years of my life serving and protecting my country and community.

Unlike Mr. Nygren, I have served in our Nation’s armed forces. I am a Navy Veteran, a certified and experienced police officer as well as a highly trained and qualified correctional officer. For those who may not know, my wife Rose is a registered nurse who has also dedicated her life to serving others. Together, we have three beautiful children, ages five, three and four months. Like yours, our family is a part of the McHenry County community and its future.

My intention is to return the Sheriff’s Department to one based on fairness, honest hard work, and a level of integrity that has been missing for many years. Accountability, transparency and fiscal responsibility will be the hallmarks of my administration. Under my leadership, the Sheriff’s Department will be saying goodbye to questionable ethics, cronyism and the business-as-usual ways of the past.

With your support on February 2nd, a new era of ethical law enforcement will begin in McHenry County. “A New Beginning” is on the horizon and we can usher it in together. When you enter the privacy of the voting booth to cast your secret ballot, you will have the opportunity to choose the man who will lead the Sheriff’s Department into the future, leaving the unfortunate ways of the past behind.

Zane Seipler
Republican Candidate for McHenry County Sheriff

Paid for by Citizens for Zane Seipler (in the Northwest Herald; free here)

Woodstock Advocate endorses Seipler

The editorial board of The Woodstock Advocate endorses Zane Seipler for Sheriff of McHenry County in the February 2nd Republican Primary Election!

The board held a long meeting this morning, attended by the owner, the publisher, the editor, the reporting staff, the treasurer, the secretary, the coffee maker and the custodian and discussed the qualifications of each Republican candidate.

After three pots of coffee, we reached a consensus.

We decided we cannot support a candidate who, as incumbent sheriff, believes that a citizen is wasting the court's time when he makes a personal traffic complaint against a serious traffic violator and is willing to go to court to testify (and who had a record of "wins" in McHenry County Traffic Court).

We cannot support a sheriff who allows a deputy to refuse a traffic complaint from another driver who is willing to go to court to testify about a serious traffic violation.

We cannot support a sheriff who appears to condone "managed" report-writing by deputies after a serious or fatal incident. Putting all the deputies in the same room with a supervisor, so they can get their stories straight, is not good cop work.

We cannot support a sheriff who drives 85MPH in Wisconsin "just to keep up with traffic", when the speed limit is 65MPH.

We cannot support a sheriff who disciplines deputies just up to the point (30 days) where their actions would have gone to the Merit Commission and into public view; example, when one deputy is shoved by another (battery) and "persuaded" not to report it to the Woodstock Police.

We cannot support a sheriff who fails to see that a ticket is issued to a deputy who runs a stop sign and causes an accident.

We cannot support a sheriff who fails to see that a ticket is issued to a deputy who carelessly drives off the road and rolls a squad car.

We cannot support a sheriff who knows that a deputy caused a crash involving a citizen's car and refuses to pay for the citizen's damage.

The editorial board believes that the arbitrator in the Seipler matter made the right decision and that the incumbent sheriff is wasting taxpayer dollars to appeal to the Circuit Court, where the case will malinger for 12-24 months.

The editorial board of The Woodstock Advocate believes that Zane Seipler is the better choice for Republican candidate for Sheriff on February 2. The board endorses Zane Seipler and wishes him success on February 2.

Election Day - coming up

In two weeks voters in McHenry County will go to the polls for the primary election. What can you do to effect change in the way law enforcement in McHenry County is conducted?

Are you, the taxpayers, ready to spring for a new building for the sheriff's department? Remember; it was only recently that millions of dollars were spent to increase the size of the jail. Now the incumbent sheriff wants to move out of that facility and build a new monument. Just say NO.

Are you sick of the number of lawsuits against the sheriff's department and the huge legal bills that you don't even hear about?

Should you hear about serious disciplinary cases within the department? They can be buried right now, as long as the discipline is not more than 30 days. Anything over 30 days has to go to the (rubber-stamp) Sheriff's Department Merit Commission, where it becomes public record, thanks to the Open Meetings Act. Not that the public will know about it, if the press doesn't cover it.

Just how effective, economical and cost-efficient is the take-home squad car program? Has any deputy ever been called out after-hours and been needed to respond in his squad car? How many times do you see a squad car parked at a deputy's home during days off or vacations? How many squad cars does the Department own? Of them how many are "take-home" squad cars? Do deputies ever make traffic stops while off-duty, when they are driving to the grocery store?

On February 2, take back control and exercise your right to choose change, not more of the same. Choose fresh ideas, not more of the same. Choose transparency, not secrecy. Choose improved morale, not fear and intimidation. Choose respect, not degradation.

Vote for Zane Seipler on the Republican primary ballot.

And forward this to every voter in McHenry County. Use the little white envelope at the bottom of this article.

Open Letter from Zane Seipler

You can read a letter from Zane Seipler to McHenry County voters on his blog at http://mcsdexposed.blogspot.com/2010/01/letter-to-voter.html To read the entire blog, click on MARV at the top left.

If you are going to vote in the February 2 Primary Election in McHenry County and pull a Republican ballot, you'll want to read that letter.

I urge you to put aside all the carping by Nygren supporters who continue to grind Zane's traffic ticketing error into his backside. He has acknowledged the error and he accepts the decision of the arbitrator about an unpaid, three-day suspension. The Sheriff's Department now owes him over a year's pay.

What does not get continued press is Zane's quick action to protect and save the life of a sergeant in 2006.

Look at the documents elsewhere on www.mcsdexposed.blogspot.com that show Zane academic performance in training classes.

Zane is also not being fairly recognized for the years of accurate records he kept about things going wrong at the McHenry County Sheriff's Department.

I know what it's like to be a whistleblower. It takes guts to take that route. Watch the movie Serpico, or watch it again.

The race between Zane Seipler and Keith Nygren is February 2, just over two weeks from now. Vote for Seipler on February 2.

Zane's position on illegal immigration

The following Press Release was received today from Zane Seipler, Republican Candidate for McHenry County Sheriff. Please read it carefully. If you have questions, please contact Zane.

PRESS RELEASE

"Recently a question has been raised with regards to my views on illegal immigration. I am a staunch supporter of an immigration policy which must include total security along our borders and ports of entry. I believe that American businesses and contractors should be severely penalized if they knowingly employ people who are in violation of immigration law. I do not believe that government benefits should be extended to people who enter our country illegally. I also believe that law enforcement should vigorously track down and arrest dangerous criminal elements within the illegal population. I do not support an immigration policy that includes amnesty to people who are currently in this country illegally."

Zane can be reached for discussion on this or any other issue at ZaneforSheriff@gmail.com or at (847) 561-1180.

Coming soon to a lawn near you

They're here; they're there. They are going to be everywhere.

Watch for these signs, and watch them.

Remember: it's illegal to remove a candidate's sign! If you see someone pulling a sign, get the license plate number, vehicle description and description of the person (get a good look at his face), and call the police. Don't wait.

Signs cost money. Zane doesn't have $120,000 for signs (or for liquor or steak dinners for his supporters).

So, every time you see a political sign for the Sheriff's race between now and February 2, think ZANE (no matter whose name is on the sign).

Note: You won't see any signs for Mike or for Gus before February 2.

It's not over 'til ...

Zane Seipler has learned that the arbitrator's decision in his termination case is being appealed in the McHenry County Circuit Court. The appeal was filed by the sheriff, who labeled the arbitrator's ruling as "repugnant."

There is no way that this case will make its way to the bench by February 2, and I suspect that taxpayers will be treated to months of motions and continuances (and expense!).

Anybody know a good bookie in McHenry County who .... oh, wait. That's probably illegal.

Will it even get settled before November 2? Probably not.

Just imagine this: when Zane wins the Republican Primary on February 2, Nygren becomes a lame duck. He'll be out of the race - totally out and not even able to run as a write-in. What will that mean for the appeal? Probably nothing, because he'll still have nine months to throw taxpayers' money at the lawyers handling it.

And just which lawyers will be representing the Sheriff's Department in the appeal. Will it be the taxpayers' who keep the lights on at the State's Attorney's Office or has the sheriff retained an outside firm to go for the brass ring?

Guess I'll have to swing by the courthouse in a few days, after the clerks have scanned in the filing and read it for myself.

I wonder what the estimate in the budget is for this appeal? $50,000? $100,000?

I predict that Zane will win in Circuit Court and that the County is on the hook for all his back pay - which is now over a year's worth of pay. Add the pay from now until the Circuit Court judge orders Nygren to put Zane back to work, and Zane stands to collect more than $80,000 for his "paid vacation."

MCSD deputy pay - how set?

Recently, total wages paid to deputy supervisors by the McHenry County Sheriff's Department came to light. They were reported on a new blog created by the campaign of Zane Seipler, Republican candidate for Sheriff of McHenry County in the February 2, 2010, primary election.

To see the number of $100,000 pay packages (plus benefits), go to http://www.mcsdexposed.blogspot.com/

FirstElectricNewspaper (FEN), at http://www.firstelectricnewspaper.com/, reported on December 31, 2009, a comment by Sheriff Nygren regarding the wages disclosed on MCSDExposed.

FEN reported, "As far as supervisors' pay goes, Nygren told FEN Wednesday, 'Those salaries are determined by the County Board.' Nygren said the Sheriff's office has to maintain competitive pay, "otherwise you end up training officers and then they go somewhere else."

It's important to understand what "determined" means there. Here's what I believe it does NOT mean.

The County Board does not review the individual salaries of County employees; for example, deputies. The County Board does not make a decision on who, individually, gets a raise or who does not. The County Board does not determine how much of a raise, if any, that any one employee (deputy) gets.

Now, if the County Board "determined" salaries, isn't that what it would do?

The deputies are unionized. Their contract is negotiated. Their pay is negotiated. When deputies at the bottom of the pile get a raise, everybody else's pay goes up. The pay of the more senior deputies goes up; sergeants' pay goes up; lieutenants' pay goes up; captains' pay goes .... You guessed it; up. And I'll bet even the Undersheriff gets a bump in pay.

What is the County Board's role in this process?

When the Sheriff's takes the pay package to the Board, they approve it. All of it. Rubber-stamp.

If the County Board merely rubber-stamps its approval on the pay packet, does that mean they "determined" it? Not by a long shot.

So, why would Nygren tell FEN that the County Board "determined" salaries?

Pay attention, folks! Start asking questions. Don't take answers at face value.

Now see this

Heading east on Route 176 through Crystal Lake today, look what greeted me at Route 31. You know that "crazy" intersection?

From the light look toward the left just a little, or watch on your right as you continue east on Route 176.

The size is huge! Good going, Zane! (To enlarge the image, click on it; then click on the Back button on your browser to come back here.)

Politicking will probably slow down a little during the holidays, but the clock keeps ticking. January will be an incredibly busy month as votes are rounded up for the February Republican primary.

It is my sense that many pro-Zane voters may be reluctant to speak up. Well, folks, screw up your courage and speak out! Zane will need thousands of your votes on February 2. When you walk into the polls, ask for a Republican ballot and vote for Zane for Sheriff.

The real race for Sheriff starts February 3, after the Republican Primary is settled. This year, make that race between Mike Mahon, Zane Seipler and me, Gus Philpott.

Seipler beats motions in Federal court

This morning's Northwest Herald announces that Zane Seipler, Republican candidate for Sheriff in the February 2 Primary election, won on two preliminary motions in Federal Court in his case against the McHenry County Sheriff's Department and incumbent Sheriff Keith Nygren.

On what did Judge Frederick Kapala rule? The print edition of the Northwest Herald indicated that Judge Kapala's decision can be read online; only at 7:00AM it can't. So I cannot read the exact ruling. Also, I cannot determine whether McHenry County is a party to Zane's lawsuit, as well as the Sheriff's Department. Or what other defendants are named.

The Sheriff's Department was trying to get Zane's case dismissed. It failed.

So which attorney gets the first shot? James Sotos. He is identified in the article as the attorney "for the county." Is he the attorney for McHenry County or just for the Sheriff's Department?

Sotos explained the judge's decision. "He's basically saying that there's enough alleged to move forward with the case," as he told the NWH reporter.

Sotos also got the last shot in the article, when he told the reporter, "...the notion that this (racial profiling) is going on the McHenry County's Sheriff's Office is ridiculous." (Yes, that's how the article read.)

Well, what else would a defense attorney say? Let's see if he has to eat those words, when Judge Kapala finally conducts the trial years from now and renders his decision.

I wondered a couple of things after I read the NWH article.

The NWH quoted the attorney whose side lost in the decision. Where was the quote from the successful attorney, Zane's attorney?

The headline above the continuation of the article on Page 4B read, "Nygren plans to appeal arbitrator's ruling in McHenry County Circuit Court." Nygren is getting a lot of press about what he is "planning" to do.

If Nygren is going to appeal the arbitrator's ruling, why doesn't he just do it? "Planning" is not "doing." Will he wait until January 19, less than two weeks before the February 2 Primary Election, to "decide"?

Is this the fair treatment that employees of the Sheriff's Department (or McHenry County) can expect, when their jobs (and their lives) hang in limbo because an elected official can't (won't!) make a decision?

In the meantime, Zane is accruing pay and is not having to work for it. I'll bet he'd rather be working for it.

McHenry County deserves better.

Reception for Zane Seipler - Dec. 16

Citizens for Zane Seipler will be holding a reception for Zane on Wednesday, December 16, here in Woodstock. Zane is a Republican candidate for Sheriff of McHenry County in the Primary Election on February 2, 2010.

The reception will be held at The Waverly Ballroom, 214 Main Street, Woodstock, and it will be from 5:00-8:00PM. That's this Wednesday!

Reservations include a buffet dinner and beverages and are $40.00 each. The invitations carried an R.S.V.P. date of today, but don't let that keep you away. Call Zane at 847.561.1180, email him at zaneforsheriff@gmail.com, or mail your check for $40.00 (payable to Citizens for Zane Seipler) to Citizens for Zane Seipler, P.O. Box 1672, Woodstock, IL 60098.

If you are unable to attend but wish to support Zane in this campaign, mail your check, payable in the same manner, to the same P.O. Box.