Seipler v. MCSD, Nygren, et al.

Because this case in Federal District Court (Rockford) is not in the news on a daily basis, some may think that the case is over.

It's not.

Yes, Zane Seipler got his job back as a deputy at the McHenry County Sheriff's Department. I think he got his four years' back pay (I don't know this; I'm not asking, and there is no reason he would tell me). He has returned to work, but he has not been at work because he must use accrued vacation time by December 31 or lose it. Basically, he has had a nice, long vacation at taxpayers' expense, thanks to Keith Nygren.

But there is still this case in Federal Court, where Zane is represented by Blake Horwitz and the sheriff and the sheriff's department are represented, as usual, by Jim Sotos. (IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 08 c 50257)

The latest round can be followed on McHenry County Blog.

The sheriff is trying to get the court to dismiss the case and impose sanctions. Horwitz, of course, must explain to the court why it should deny that motion to dismiss.

You'll want to put on a fresh pot of coffee and be well rested, when you begin slogging through the "PLAINTIFF’S (that's Seipler) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DENYING DEFENDANTS’ SANCTIONS MOTION".

Go slowly, and understand it. Read carefully the part about Sgt. Greg Pyle and his skills at hacking into others' computers. There's a guy that the sheriff spent thousands of dollars on, sending him for specialized training in computers. Consider where Pyle has been recently (and may even be right now. In case you've forgotten, try "Boone County (Illinois) Jail."

What do you suppose is the cost to McHenry County for the Sheriff's Department to defend itself, the sheriff and certain named deputies in this case?

Maybe, instead, Horwitz could be asking the Court for a declaratory judgement in Seipler's favor for how a confidential deposition made its way to the Northwest Herald and a Crystal Lake businessman friend of the sheriff. That's already in the public record.

That move may come up in the 2014 election campaign for sheriff.

What does a subordinate do, if his superior officer tells him to do something improper (or illegal) and if he knows, or should have known, that it was improper (or illegal)?

Should he refuse outright? Or, recognizing that he might incur displeasure or wrath of his boss for refusing (or maybe even for just objecting), should he just keep his mouth shut but not follow orders? Or should he just be a "good soldier" (no disrespect meant to the military) and do what he is told?

Which is what he did.