Last Wednesday was a nice day for a drive from Woodstock to Rockford, and I headed over that way for a 1:30PM hearing in Magistrate Judge Mahoney's courtroom in the federal case of Zane Seipler vs. Sheriff Nygren and crew. I had received a subpoena from the sheriff's attorney to produce an enormous amount of paperwork for a 27-month period of time, ever since Seipler's case got underway.
I had filed a motion to quash the subpoena, and the hearing was set for last Wednesday. Representing the Nygren (individually and as Sheriff) and the other defendants was Elizabeth Barton, a lawyer in the office of Jim Sotos of Itasca. We waited our turn, and I began to get a feel for how Judge Mahoney conducted business in his courtroom.
Cal Skinner wrote a great article, with photographs and a copy of my motion, on April 7, and I invite you to read his article at http://www.mchenrycountyblog.com/ You can find it easily by entering Philpott in the search box on the left side.
Judge Mahoney asked Ms. Barton what the subpoena was about and then proceeded to tear it apart. Although the Sotos office had filed a Response to my motion, I had chosen to support my request only in court, rather than to engage in a battle of paperwork. The outcome was that Judge Mahoney granted my motion, and the subpoena I had received is dead in the water.
I was standing to Ms. Barton's right and directly in front of the judge, when I heard her say, "...Seipler was terminated for complaining about racial profiling." I wrote down her words immediately after she said them, and I thought, "She just won Zane's case for him." Isn't this exactly what Zane's case is about?
I am anxious to see the transcript. It should appear in the District Court records for the case, as soon as one of the parties orders the hearing transcribed.
Be sure to read the article on McHenry County Blog.
I couldn't help wondering as I stood there in court that, if I even had any documents such as the Sotos firm was requesting, wouldn't they realize that such documents would likely hurt their case?
Let's say that a deputy told me, "At roll call we were told the way to avoid racial profiling is just to mark everybody down as white." Which, by the way, is exactly what I was told had been said at roll call. That wasn't in writing; it was by telephone. And I don't know the name of the person who told me.
Did I believe that person? You bet!
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
3 comments:
"The force can have a strong influence on the weak minded."
tired, I think you ought to be a little nicer, when you speak of Nygren that way. Just this afternoon I read a long message that said many at the Department fear him because he is so powerful; i.e., he can fire anyone for a reason or no reason.
The deputies who signed on "to protect and to serve" want to do just that. I suggest that most don't want to have to choose sides within the Department. There should be only ONE side.
Unfortunately, there is now the "in" crowd and the "out" crowd.
I think most of the corrections officers want to do their jobs well. Then there are others who want to do as little as possible and others who will fraternize with the gangbangers who are in jail.
This latter activity endangers all - officers and inmates. It must stop.
You know I wasn't referring to the Sheriff. Ever hear of 'at will employees' in Il?
Post a Comment