Thursday at 10 before Associate Judge Thomas Meyer Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz will face off against Assistant State’s Attorney Donald Leist in a fight about whether Sheriff Keith Nygren will have the same type of scrutiny from a Special Prosecutor that State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi is enduring.
In the filing before his last one (which detailed alleged infractions by Sheriff Nygren put on the record in Seipler’s wrongful termination court hearing on December 15th), Horwitz argued at length that the State’s Attorney’s Office should not be representing Nygren.
Horwitz points out that his client is alleging Nygren committed the same type of violations that Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan has charging Bianchi with.
Horwitz says that Bianchi has a duty to
- “zealously defend Mr. Nygren from criminal prosecution; and
- “investigate/prosecute Mr. Nygren for criminal activity.”
“It is undisputed that a conflict exists,” the brief later asserts, complete with footnotes referencing a previously filed document.
“Respondent can not, on a whim, assert the existence of a conflict, while in the same breath withdraw the conflict.”
There is much, much more detail, argument and citations which I don’t have time to go into.
The Wednesday before last, McHenry County Assistant State’s Attorney Donald Leist filed a reply to former Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s response to the State’s Attorney’s motion to dismiss the suit asking for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor in his case against his Republican primary opponent winner Sheriff Keith Nygren. You can read the full filing below. Click to enlarge any page.
Here’s the first paragraph after the introduction:
“Petitioner has now finally filed a Response to the County’s Motion to Dismiss. However, the Response is at least as, if not more, confusing that his four Petitions put together.”
“Sheer madness” appears on page 3.
The concluding page reads as follows:
“Therefore, it is clear that Petitioner’s arguments shift like the wind depending upon only Petitioner’s whim. A courtroom is not, however, the place for fanciful imagination and wild conjecture.
“Instead, it is up to the Court to examine whether the allegations made in Petitioner’s Fourth Petition can survive a Motion to Dismiss. The County of McHenry urges this Honorable Court to hold the allegations of Petitioner’s Fourth Petition insufficient to require a Special Prosecutor to be appointed. In addition to being conclusory and wildly conjectural, the Fourth Petition’s allegations do not satisfy the minimum requirements of 55 ILCS 5.3-9008 as detailed in Respondent’s Memorandum of Law.
“Petitioner’s ‘what-ifs’ conjured up in his Response cannot masquerade as well-pled facts and do not address the clear rule of law expressed in E.P.A. vs Pollution Control Central Board, 69 Ill.2nd 400, N.E.2nd 50 or McCall vs. Devine, 334 Ill.App.3rd 192. 777 N.E.2nd 405 (1st Dist. 2002). Petitioner has now had four bites at the apple and each successive Petition has no more teeth than the previous Petition.
“WHEREFORE, the County of McHenry prays that this matter be dismissed with prejudice and for such other relief as this Honorable Court deems fit and just.”