"Parlez-vous français?"

That's what the judge asked this afternoon in Immigration Court in Chicago.

I spent the day in the Loop today, helping a friend with an immigration problem. Separately, I'll write about all the breakdowns in the DOJ procedures, but suffice it to say that "all's well that ends well."

After arriving on time at 8:00AM, as directed, at 55 East Monroe Street (which meant catching the 6:00AM Metra from Woodstock), my friend, who is a community college student from African country, his landlady and I cooled our heels all day. At 3:10PM his case was called, along with the cases of a Hispanic man and Hispanic woman. All three had indicated to the Court Clerk that they wanted continuances.

An Spanish-speaking interpreter was in the court for the man's case, and the woman, his wife, told the judge that she spoke English well. When the judge asked my friend if he spoke English, he said, "I am more fluent in French, but I also speak English, German and Fon."

And what said the judge? "Parlez-vous français?"

And away they went in French. I mean, you could almost feel the glee in the judge's voice as he got a probably rare opportunity to speak French. I think the proceedings got a little extra time and, for the entire time, I thought, "What a break for my friend!" The judge was clearly delighted to speak in French.

My friend is in the U.S. on a student visa, and he ran afoul of his student status early in 2010, when he wasn't able to re-enroll promptly at his community college. ICE picked him up on the far south side of Chicago and, after a quick stop at Bridgeview, delivered him to the McHenry County Jail's ICE unit. He called his landlady at 2AM; she searched the internet, found my name and sent me an email at 3AM for information about the McHenry County Jail. Did she reach the right person??? I happened to be up and replied at 3:15AM.

He was a guest in Sheriff Nygren's Hotel for several weeks, while his parents rounded up his bond and send it to me. I was able to represent him in court, after I carefully read the court's Appearance form.

The two immigration court judges (the one last year and today's judge) were great. The system that supports them in broken. But that's a story for another day (maybe tomorrow).

Historic Preservation Commission special meeting

A Special Meeting of the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Woodstock City Council will be held on Monday, June 20, for the purpose of reviewing and discussing the draft of the revised design guidelines for the Historic District. 

The HPC is a commission of interested and concerned residents of the City who devote their personal time to maintaining the integrity of the historic district and other parts of the City. Often a thankless job, in my opinion, because their decisions and positions, after being carefully reasoned, have been overridden by the City Council.

The HPC has been working on the revisions since February 2010 and completed them at its May meeting.

The joint meeting is scheduled for 7:00PM in City Council chambers and is open to the public. After any council requested changes or corrections the guidelines will be placed on a future city council agenda for approval.

Perhaps the Council would do well to remember that it establishes the guidelines and then it should be expected to adhere to them and stop granting variances after the fact or in the face of commercial opposition. The city is either going to have a historic district or it isn't. If it isn't going to, then it might be time to send the HPC down the same drain as the Liquor Commission. However, if that is considered, maybe the public will finally stand up and object.

O'Dell Inquest to be June 23

An inquest into the April 26th death of Tommy Joe O'Dell, Jr., will be conducted by the McHenry County Coroner's Office on Thursday, June 23, at 1:00PM. The inquest will be held at 2200 North Seminary Avenue, Room 342, Woodstock (the McHenry County Government Center building).

O'Dell died unexpectedly while in custody at the McHenry County Jail. He had gone to traffic court in the morning and then had gone to Judge Michael Feetterer's courtroom. While he was there, he was taken into custody on an outstanding warrant and taken to the jail. According to an article in the Northwest Herald, he died in the afternoon while being held in a cell in the booking area.

A Coroner's inquest is held when a person dies while in custody. A detective from the sheriff's department
investigates the circumstances of the death and writes a report. That detective then testifies at the Coroner's inquest. An initial Freedom of Information Act request for the report in O'Dell's death was denied on May 26th, on the grounds that an active investigation was still open. A week later, it still was not available.

Even though the Coroner's inquest is scheduled for June 23, the O'Dell report is still not available today. For the inquest to be scheduled, it would seem to me that the report must have been completed by the sheriff's department and transmitted to the Coroner's office.

In the next previous jail death, the investigator's report was done in four days. I wonder what is taking so long this time.

DUI - local ordinance charge or statute?

How does a police officer decide whether to ticket a suspected offender under a local ordinance or an Illinois statute?

For example, if a driver is stopped for a violation and then suspected to be DUI, how does the officer decide whether to cite the driver under a city's local ordinance (which often just mirrors the Illinois Statute) or under the Statute itself?

Does it make a difference?

For a serious violation such as DUI, shouldn't the driver be charged under the Statute, which will kick in the Office of the McHenry County State's Attorney and cause them to be the prosecutor?

If he charges the driver under a local ordinance? Then the city's attorney will handle the case. That firm will be the city's general municipal law firm that handles everything (real estate advice, City Code, City Council meetings, traffic tickets, etc.) for the city - and it won't be a specialist in prosecuting DUIs.

Isn't the goal of a DUI ticket to penalize a driver and get her (or him) to mend her ways? As well as sucking up the big bucks for a fine? Maybe a city gets a bigger piece of the pie, when it uses the local ordinance and has its own attorney handle the case.

But it has to win a conviction in court. And the city will bear the expense of prosecution, whether it wins or not.

If you are going to have heart surgery, don't you get the specialist, instead of just having your favorite old family doctor, Dr. Lop N. Chop, come into surgery that day?

There is a case coming up this week for an Early Plea. Why does a driver with a DUI ask for an Early Plea court date? It's called D-E-A-L.

I say, "No deal!" No "negotiated" deal. Well, a blind plea might be okay. Then the judge makes the decision on fine and jail time.

Beth Bentley - now gone 55 weeks

It is time to stop fooling around with this case and solve the disappearance of Beth Bentley. Bentley, 41 at the time she disappeared in May 2010, didn't just walk off the edge of the earth. People know what happened to her. And those people need to start talking!

This is a missing-person's case, not a criminal investigation. So has said the Woodstock Police Department.

But here is something new from the City of Woodstock. In response to my Freedom of Information Act Request to inspect ALL the documentation of this case, the response from the City was to deny my request, claiming an exclusion that the records were,
"Records in the possession of any public body created in the course of administrative enforcement proceedings, and any law enforcement or correctional agency for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure would:

(i)                  interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings conducted by any law enforcement…agency…"

Are there pending law enforcement proceedings?
Are there actually law enforcement proceedings?
Are there reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings?

I don't think so.

My request list was lengthy. Certainly, some of the information could have been released. But the City (speaking for the Police Department) is taking the approach that all of it is protected from release. We'll see what the Public Access Counselor at the Office of the Illinois Attorney General has to say.

Since the police department has never even once gotten close to calling this a criminal investigation, how can they withhold information now by saying there are law enforcement proceedings? Even "endangered" has never been defined as it applies to Beth Bentley. She was not in any known danger; was not missing any necessary medications; was not mentally unstable; was not in known need of ongoing medical treatment.

If the P.D. wants to start naming persons-of-interest or suspects, great! Keep everything private. I wouldn't want to jeopardize any prosecution. Note: concealing a homicidal death is a crime. In Illinois it's a felony. Knowing what happened to Beth and keeping quiet about it is going to land some people in jail.

Remember how all the focus at the time was on how Beth's cell phone and credit cards hadn't been used? Well, what about the cell phone records of some of those really close to her?

It seems that the cell phones of some of her intimate friends were quite busy that week-end. And "busy" doesn't begin to describe Monday's cell phone usage. How would one person have time to make over 100 phone calls and text-messages while presumably driving for 6 1/2 hours, and what would be the purpose of some of those early-evening phone calls to a lawyer? And not just any lawyer?

What about those calls to a person whose driving (DUI) has just come to the attention of the Woodstock Police Department? What were those conversations on May 24, 2010, all about?

Finally, people are starting to make mistakes. The police should take advantage of every legal opportunity to exploit every situation and gather important information. No plea bargains. No early pleas. Go for the jugular. The choice must be 1) talk, or 2) 364 days in jail.

Another stupid idea in the legislature

Almost every day I am glad that I spend $1/week to get the Northwest Herald delivered to my door. I just wish that friendly dog would bring it, but my carrier is quiet at 4:00AM, and I appreciate his timely delivery.

And now, for the Stupid Idea of the Week. or maybe of the Month. or possibly of the Year.

What is it? Allowing corporations to advertise on the license plates on cars in Illinois.

There are already more than 70 license plates to choose from in Illinois. What has gotten lost in this shuffle is that the purpose of a license plate is to identify a vehicle. The numbers need to be large enough to be read from a distance and should be distinguishable from that background on the plate. Specialty plates carry extra letters that you must remember, if you are going to report a license plate to police.

The same license plate number can be issued to different classifications of vehicle. Just imagine the problem if you get run off the road and call the police with the license plate number, but don't know the plate classification (which might be different from the specialty plate category).

Where did this hare-brained idea come from? A guy in Chicago who wants to make his million with a start-up business. Don't prisoners make license plates?

And from a Chicago State Senator - John Munroe. Jesse White's office had the right idea when they tried to kill the idea, when Sen. Munroe showed up with it. Unfortunately, because "Senator" Munroe carried it in, now state time (and money) will be wasted to evaluate whether corporations ought to be able to advertise on license plates.

Do you want to see Sears or Kohl's or AT&T or Philpott Hypnotherapy or Hooters on the license plate of the car in front of you? OK, well, maybe Hooters...

Stupid; really stupid...

Take-home squad cars - a good deal?

Are take-home squad cars a good deal? Today the Northwest Herald made the topic a front-page, top-right article. That's prime territory in a newspaper. It's the best "real estate" in the paper.

I've written about take-home cars before, and I'm sure I'll write again.

Are they a good deal?

For the deputies, they are (to use our former governor's language --- (no, wait; I won't...) golden. Some deputies don't even own personal vehicles. Think of the money they save each month by not owning a personal vehicle - no monthly payment, no gas, no maintenance, no insurance, no repairs, no tires, no license plates. Some of those who don't have personal cars rely on a spouse's car or a girlfriend's car.

Or they drive a squad car when they shouldn't; for example, when they are drunk. Or, maybe, when they have "just" been drinking. After all, who is going to "stop" a squad car and then write up the driver for a DUI?

According to Lt. John Miller of the McHenry County Sheriff's Department, "The (take-home) program reduces wear on vehicle because they are not running 24 hours a day, and increases response time." He also said that the take-home squad car policy has been in existence for 20 years.

I wonder if MCSD tracks the number of times that any deputy have been called out in the middle of his off-duty time to respond to a call. Think you could count the number of times in 20 years on one hand? On both hands? Counting with all fingers and all toes?

Does MCSD require deputies to record odometer readings at the beginning of each day? Suppose one deputy lives two miles from the department headquarters, and another deputy lives 20 miles away? Who pays for the gas?

How many take-home cars are used by personnel who live outside the County? The answer should be, "None." That's not the answer. So, how many?

The article read (so Lt. Miller must have said) that "Personal use of squad cars is discouraged..." That's not good enough. What's that old military phrase, "Rank hath its privileges."

If you are among the favored, the line for "discouraged use" will be drawn in sand. A deputy on the wrong side of the line will be disciplined, whereas a deputy on the "right" side of the line will get a pass for the same use.

And no passengers except law enforcement? When Corrections Chief Sedlock was in the hospital, didn't his wife drive his take-home car to the hospital (50 miles one-way) to see him, and didn't family members ride with her? His car is a County-owned, take-home vehicle (not sure about emergency equipment and police-band radios), but it belonged parked in the yard at home while he was hospitalized - or, better yet, returned to the Sheriff's Department parking lot, where it could have been put into other use (after all straw was removed from the trunk). And who paid for the gas for those hospital runs?

Mileage records for the Sheriff's Tahoe have interested me for months. When Sheriff Nygren lived in Hebron, the distance to the office was 9.6 miles. That's 20 miles/day. If he went to the office five days a week, that's 100 miles in a week. How many miles a week did he actually drive it? How many in a month? Odometer readings will disclose that. So would maintenance records at the department's service garage.

He's a little farther away now - 11.8 miles, so he might drive 24 miles/day on his commute. But he hasn't been in town much, so the Tahoe should have been parked. When he goes to Minocqua, does he drive his personal vehicle? Does he even own a personal vehicle?