When Woodstock Advocate blogger Gus Philpott went to Rockford Federal Court to object to Sheriff Keith Nygren’s attempt to get all of his emails to and from any number of people, Philpott challenged the decision and won his motion to prevent enforcement of the subpoena.
And he won. See
Contained within the hearing transcript (which you can find in full here) of Zane Seipter’s case against the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department is the following stunning admission by Sheriff Nygren attorney Elizabeth Barton:
“…Mr. Seipler was terminated for complaining about racial profiling.”
The case Seipler brought against the Sheriff’s Department charges wrongful termination.
The following part of the transcript puts that statement into context:
THE COURT: No. The information would have to be pertinent to this lawsuit, not just the internal investigation to get to it.
MS. BARTON: Okay. There’s also information about the deputies at roll call who said on his blog or —
THE COURT: What date are we talking about? When Mr. Seipler was still there or not?
MS. BARTON: When Mr. Seipler was still there.
THE COURT: And what did the deputy say, according to the blog?
MS. BARTON: That Mr. Seipler was either making allegations against certain deputies for racial profiling or that he or she overheard other deputies telling the people in the roll call room —
THE COURT: Why do you want to know about that?
MS. BARTON: Because Mr. Seipler was terminated for complaining about racial profiling. So, it’s important to know who he complained to and who was aware of the allegations at the time.
THE COURT: But you could ask Mr. Seipler that and have at his deposition, haven’t you?
MS. BARTON: We have.
THE COURT: So, why does this person here have more information than Mr. Seipler’s given you?
MS. BARTON: Well, we’re looking for the identity of the deputies that were making those statements in the roll call room or anywhere else in the sheriff’s department, and so far we haven’t been able to determine who those deputies are.