State’s Attorney’s Office Replies to Zane Seipler’s Motion re Sheriff Keith Nygren

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.

And later,

“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.”


Comments

State’s Attorney’s Office Replies to Zane Seipler’s Motion re Sheriff Keith Nygren — 13 Comments

  1. LOL…that about sums it up…”it appears the petitioner is in the midst of sheer madness”…I sometimes wonder if a specific Nygren critic even realizes how much the mud he slings contradicts the rest of the mud he slings…

    Once again it shows why there simply is no surprise this guy is in full proactive mud slinging mode against the psychologist who evaluated him as we await to here the psychologists testimony…

  2. Where does it say anything about a psychologist or his testimony. And testimony about who? Aren’t medical evaluations confidential. The judge will decide what is sheer madness, not that bozo Leist or Carroll. Wasn’t Carroll in that austin powers movie.

  3. Just and Are You – You need to get a job. If you have one, you spend more time spouting CYA garbage than working – should loose your job.

  4. Walrushunter says “Where does it say anything about a psychologist or his testimony. And testimony about who?”

    Seriously? Do we have to play that game with the anti sheriff crowd? I wouldn’t suppose you will stop commenting about the Psychologist in question now that you claim not to know anything about him or his deposition about whether there is madness involved with the individual in question?

    šŸ˜‰

  5. From what I hear, Dr. Meyer has been a very good witness…..for Seipler. When the heat is on people tend to tell the truth.

  6. Oh the Bachmann bunch are breaking out the old tired “get a job” argument.

    Cracks me up.

    So a couple of guys can dedicate whole blogs and write daily articles attacking the Sheriff and spend time posting comments on every online article across the web doing the same and that is cool, but if anyone wants to question there ramblings those people should not be wasting time? I suppose if you can’t debate facts all you can do is try to silence those who disagree.

    I suppose I for one will consider firing myself today for posting opinions that disagree with the Bachmann bunch a couple of times a day, but don’t hold your breath Vastare I will probably still find the time in my busy day to reply to the local conspiracy theorists.

  7. Are, Justs (all of them), But and many other names. Anyone who has ever taught or managed people that have to know writing skills, can see you are all the same person. You comment on everything that allows it with the same dribble. You have to much time on your hands. You know what they say about idle hands.

  8. So now the “Bachmann” Bunch through there tin foil hat wisdom has decided that all posters that dare criticize there conspiracy theories are actually one person.

    I hate to break it to you but there are many more than one person out here that thinks you guys may have slipped off you medication.

    I do however suspect there is some minor grain of truth to the point that I will happily cede to. I suspect that there are posters on both sides of most issues that may have more than one online psuedomyn. I for one have 2 commenting names I use on local and national comment sections. For me it is simply about ease of use as I also use different emails dependent on if I am on my desktop PC or my laptop. I know I don’t have to, but that is how I choose to organize.

    As for too much time or idle hands: I would estimate I spend about 45 minutes to an hour posting on political issues both local and national 4 or 5 times a week. I’m comfortable with that number but suspect it is just a drop in the bucket compared to some of the Anti sheriff bloggers.

    Either way you have to admit criticizing someone for taking the time to comment on a blog that you yourself often comment on is pretty ironic and funny.

  9. Are You, I would guess you are talking about doc Meyer. What was said in his deposition, was somebody “crazy”, and who? I heard his deposition went very bad for the county. Any facts you would like to share. I think that deposition is sealed along with the others, but I know things don’t stayed sealed once someone at the SO has it.

  10. Walrushunter, I just want to hear the facts from the deposition, however I feel it is very telling that the Seipler crowd has gone into full attack mode versus him proactively. Interesting you heard that it went very bad as it is sealed and not public in any manner.

  11. Do you want to hear the facts of the Milliman deposition also.

    I guess the NWH has a copy somehow.

    I don’t think there were any bombshells against Zane in the doc Meyer deposition. Zane was cleared for duty. I think the attacks are about what Nygren is trying to do to Milliman with a doctor. Paint him as crazy to weaken his story.

    I hear he has documents and recordings, wouldn’t that be great for the Nygren lovers. A good video could be worth many indictments. Too bad the SA is too busy to even talk to Milliman about his claims. They must be doing a vandalism to mailbox investigation.

  12. Walrus, you hear a lot of rumors, lets just not confuse them for facts.

    Many on your side of this debate have made it clear that they claim knowledge to recordings, wiretaps, immunity agreements, federal prosecutor involvement, and fbi involvement. If those making these accusations are telling the truth then we should expect federal indictments and I for one will admit my assumptions on this case were wrong. However, my opinion is there is no chance that there is any truth in these claims. I will await the much talked about federal involvement, but until then I suspect there are no truth to these rumors as many just don’t hold up to basic common sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *