Does the Hatch Act of 1939 apply to the 2010 McHenry County election for Sheriff? And, if it does, was Keith Nygren ineligible to run as a candidate? And will employment at the McHenry County Sheriff's Department be a problem for any candidate in a future election?
On March 26 "Steve" added a comment to my article about the Hatch Act and wrote, in part, "Yep, the Feds did extend it to the local government units but they also - if you research it beyond Wikipedia - state that it DOES NOT apply to someone campaigning for public office."
What Steve apparently did not read was the New York Times OpEd piece piece dated October 30, 2011, by Office of Special Council Director Carolyn N. Lerner. She wrote, in part, "Sheriffs’ offices are especially affected. Since 9/11, federal grants to state and local law enforcement have soared. Deputies are commonly the most knowledgeable and capable potential candidates, but they are ineligible to succeed their bosses because of the influx of federal money."
While Director Lerner might not like the law, it is the law. Will the McHenry County Clerk or the County Board touch this "hot potato"? If they submitted a complaint (or inquiry) to the U.S. Office of Special Council (www.osc.gov), how fast would the Office decide? In time to remove Nygren from office, if it determined that he was not eligible to run in the November 2010 election? Then what would happen? Would Mike Mahon also be disqualified, because he was employed by the Cook County Sheriff's Office?
If McHenry County officials (elected or appointed) become aware of a violation of Federal law, what happens if they don't take action? Do they become liable?
The McHenry County State's Attorney cannot be expected to take up this issue. After all, that office defends the Sheriff. Should there be a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate election irregularity?
Do I have a personal interest in this? You bet! Did I get cheated out of an election victory? If Nygren and Mahon were removed from the ballot and therefore from the election, should I have been Sheriff since December 1, 2010? Am I entitled to the pay for the office since that date? Should I sue? Should I be the one to file a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel?
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
8 comments:
The conjecture you conjure up is beyond belief. Where do you dream up these fairy tale ideas about the application of obscure laws? Here’ some conjecture that you may want to check out. I was told that if you hop onto the CTA third rail, you can walk it as long as your other foot never touches the ground. Sound plausible Gus? About as much sense as applying the Hatch act to this scenario. Why don’t you go down to the Cumberland Station and try the third rail theory and report back.
Assuming everything you are saying is true and enforceable, which I don't think it is, why would you assume that you are the rightful Sheriff? You ran as a Green Party candidate and a Republican, that you claim was ineligible, won. If I remember the 2010 election correctly, there was a Republican primary election. According to your claims, that would make Nygren's primary victory void. That would mean that the young man who has fought Nygren and corruption for the last 3 years would have been the rightful Republican candidate. I also believe that he received more primary Republican votes than you did General Election votes.
So Gus, if all you are saying is true, who do you think should be the Sheriff?
I disagree with Concerned Citizen. Gus brings up an important point. Pointless lawsuits like those against the State's Attorney and the Sheriff should be vigorously pursued, to their ultimate failure.
I can't tell you how important attorney-welfare is. There are many starving attorneys who need this make-belive work to pay mortgages and feed their children.
Without pointless lawsuits the county would only save millions of dollars ... their budget is much bigger than that so it's ok.
Besides, it's not our money they are spending ... it is government money ...
So please stop harassing Gus to not call for these investigations they are vital to the attorney economy.
Thank you.
Johna, thanks for your comment. If Nygren is disqualified and removed from the ballot, then the Republicans had no one on the ballot. Or, if Zane succeeds to the position, he got no votes in the General Election. He can't claim Nygren's votes. Votes are for the candidate, not for the Party.
Thanks, Ray. I had overlooked the Lawyers' Relief and Retirement Act.
I'm sure they can't survive on the needless and excessive number of court appearances, all due to the fact that the judge won't allow them to just fax in a request for a Continuance.
Defendants need lawyers to protect them from the lawyers. Why, there's a whole new area of law practice!
While you have complained about it a ton, I think cases being continued a lot should be addressed ...
I do not get paid when a case gets continued ... On the criminal side, I do not know of one attorney who gets paid more for a case getting continued ...
To me continuances are a huge waste of our time, I would like to beat the state's case into submission, but they are allowed to continue the case ad infinitum ... until we have to relent ...
This is the part of the system that you simply miss the point of ... it is too bad you just don't get it ... the good that you could do for defendants, is overshadowed by your jealosy of lawyers. Sigh.
Now I wonder what percentage of cases are continued on motion of the Defense and what percent on motion of the prosecution. I'll bet every defense lawyer in a court room charges $100-200 for stepping up to the judge and saying, "Need a continuance for 30 days, your honor." Ka-ching.
I think the judges seldom ask why, or remember 30 days later to ask what happened in the past month. The State certainly asks for its share, but what is that share?
How much would you like to wager? And how many attorneys do I have to show to win ... ?
Post a Comment