Part 13 – Sheriff Keith Nygren’s Argument that Zane Seipler Should Be Held in Contempt of Court for Posting Secret Documents on the Internet

  1. Why did Plaintiff fail to alert the Court to the evidence until December 2011?

Another compelling illustration of the fraud attempted on this Court is the contrived explanations Plaintiff and Horwitz offered for the delay between allegedly learning of Mrs. Seipler’s role in August 2011 and Plaintiff’s first effort to present his wife’s testimony to the Court over three and a half months later.

Plaintiff has advanced so many conflicting and transparently false explanations for his silence during this period that no reasonable person could realistically believe he was not responsible for creating and posting documents to Real MCSO.

At the time he allegedly learned about his wife’s revelations, Plaintiff claims he knew he was in “big trouble,” at risk of criminal prosecution, and having his case dismissed. (Id. at 335-36; see id. at 1494, 1662-63.)

Yet, the lack of any effort to bring this exonerating evidence to the Court throughout August, September, October, and November spoke volumes.

And the explanation the Seiplers and Horwitz tried to sell for that deafening silence wilted under scrutiny.

Initially, Plaintiff contended the Seiplers’ dire financial straits prevented them from getting to a lawyer before November. (Id. at 374-75, 433-34.)

But Mrs. Seipler stated it was her schedule that prevented her from getting to Rockford before then. (Id. at 1674-76, 1768.)

Second, Plaintiff and Horwitz went to impressive lengths to establish the need to protect Mrs. Seipler with an attorney (id. at 346, 355, 371-73, 377), all of which was contradicted by her testimony that she did not think she did anything wrong, and that she told her husband to simply come forward because it was not a big deal. (Id. at 1668-71.)

John Nelson

John Nelson

And, while Nelson valiantly tried to identify a conflict that held up the disclosure, his acknowledgment that Mrs. Seipler told him “her husband wanted her to sign an affidavit” likely offered the clearest window into Plaintiff’s behind-the-scenes efforts to convince his wife to take the blame for his misconduct. (Id. at 900-01, 906; see also 911.)

Indeed, Mrs. Seipler’s attorney, Giovaninni, conceded Horwitz could have just as easily researched Mrs. Seipler’s potential culpability as he. (Id. at 1420-21.)

The conflicts issue created by Horwitz was just another fraudulent exercise in misdirection, intended to explain the fact that Plaintiff could not or did not convince his wife to lie for him until after Magistrate Judge Mahoney referred the case to this Court on October 18, 2011.

As a result, it was not at all surprising that Nelson testified he first met with Mrs. Seipler on October 26, just over a week after that referral.[FN16] (Id. at 845.)

= = = = =

FN16 Mrs. Seipler, on re-direct, offered the contradictory explanation that she was once on her way to Rockford to meet with Nelson, but had to turn back because he cancelled. (Id. at 1765-66, 1768.) Notably, Nelson never mentioned this during his testimony.

= = = = =

Despite the rhetoric about conflicts and the need for lawyers, it was painfully obvious that if Mrs. Seipler were telling the truth about her blogging activity, all that would have happened if Plaintiff disclosed the evidence would have been the denial of Defendants’ motion, or perhaps some small sanction against Plaintiff for failing to keep her from accessing the documents.

Mrs. Seipler was not subject to the protective order, and it was obvious she would not have faced any criminal or civil sanctions, if she had, in fact, posted the documents.

Indeed, Horwitz’ rambling answer to this Court’s inquiry on July 24 as to the specific nature of any conflict perhaps, as much as anything, revealed the futility of his efforts to pin the failure to come forward with the evidence on any such conflict. (Id. at 912-18.)

In the end, the lack of any plausible explanation for failing to bring Mrs. Seipler’s alleged confession to the Court’s attention further establishes the fabricated nature of the affirmative defense.

Part 14 tomorrow.


Leave a Reply

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