Bianchi on the Attack in Chicago – Part 2

When we interrupted the description of  McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s revision of his Federal court case against Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen and Quest Consultants International, et al, we had just gotten to the unnamed “co-conspirators.”

That’s where we begin today.

Co-conspirators enter the picture here:

“Defendant McQueen, along with Defendant Quest Investigators, and other as yet unnamed co-conspirators, met and agreed, through explicit and/or implicit means, to

  • manufacture and
  • fabricate

evidence for the purpose of removing Bianchi from office by charging and prosecuting Bianchi and other SAO employees with criminal offenses, despite the lack of probable cause or credible evidence.”

McQueen’s personal involvement in the investigation is stressed, including his personal interviewing of individuals.

“Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators manufactured evidence and fabricated inculpatory witness statements against Bianchi and other SAO employees,” the filing says.

And, “at the direction and/or with the knowledge of Defendant McQueen, the Defendant Quest Investigators prepared reports that contained the false and manufactured evidence.”

A list of witnesses interviewed for which inaccurate reports were prepared follows:

  • William Dennison
  • Nichole Owens
  • Mary McClellan
  • Jamie Rein

McQueen is also said to have convinced Quest investigator Robert Scigalski to change reports.

Next, Ekl writes,

“After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that the false evidence manufactured during the investigation by Defendant McQueen and the Defendant Quest Investigators was done without Special Prosecutor Tonigan’s knowledge.”

Bianchi’s “political enemies” make another appearance in the text, “secretly obtaining information from Bianchi’s political enemies in furtherance of the conspiracy to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights through the manufacture and falsification of evidence to arrest, indict, and prosecute Bianchi and other members of the SAO with crimes that they did not commit. Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators concealed their relationship and communications with these individuals until they were recently revealed through discovery obtained by Plaintiffs on May 23, 2012 in this instant case.”

Subsequently, the Grand Jury Judge Graham convened is examined, emphasizing the leadership role McQueen played in the investigation, but including false statements made to the Grand Jury by the Special Prosecutor and Quest investigator Scigalski.

The belief is expressed that “Tonigan did not know that the evidence was false and that Tonigan incorrectly believed that Defendants McQueen andScigalski were relating truthful information that they learned during their investigation.”

The September, 2010, indictment and arrest of Bianchi and his assistant Joyce Synek is the next topic covered.

The text intimates that McQueen “duped” Tonigan to bring charges.

It continues to emphasize the problems with the investigation.

And, the “co-conspirators” return:

“Despite the concerted efforts by the Defendants and other as yet unnamed co-conspirators,
Bianchi refused to resign and continued with his duties as State’s Attorney.”

Because “the first indictment failed to allege Bianchi committed an actual underlying crime,
which is required to charge official misconduct…Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators resumed their investigation for the purpose of fabricating evidence that Bianchi committed an underlying crime of ‘theft of labor, services, and use of property.’”

After an interview with McHenry County Administrator Peter Austin, the Special Prosecutors withheld the statement and “instead manufactured a false statement of Peter Austin for the purpose of creating the appearance that there was probable cause to charge Bianchi and Synek with conspiracy and official misconduct.”

From October through March, 2011, the filing claims that McQueen withheld evidence, including “evidence that a computer virus explained why certain documents could not be recovered from a computerrather than a deliberate act by Bianchi or Synek, [which] eviscerated the conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges….”

Again, thee is language to let Tonigan off the hook.

And the conclusion:

“…the withheld information would have additionally revealed gross investigative misconduct and perjured testimony before the grand jury, thereby exposing due process violations which would have led to the dismissal of Bianchi and Synek’s indictments prior to trial by the trial judge.”

Note the emphasis on the investigatory miscues.

Bianchi and Synek were found not guilty after a two-day bench trial by Judge Joseph McGraw.

The second trial and its investigation now take center stage:

“Shortly after obtaining the first indictment against Bianchi and Synek, Defendants McQueen and Scigalski began a second illegal and unauthorized investigation of Bianchi, and two of his employees, Plaintiffs Ronald J. Salgado and Michael J. McCleary. This investigation included interviewing witnesses about Bianchi’s handling of criminal cases, which clearly exceeded their authority under the orders signed by Judge Graham appointing Tonigan as a special prosecutor on September 18, 2009 and January 7, 2010.”

It is noted that McQueen incorrectly identified himself as a “Special State’s Attorney” in a petition to expand the investigation, although “Tonigan was the only individual legally appointed as a Special State’s Attorney and, pursuant to court order, Defendant McQueen was only appointed to ‘assist’ Tonigan.”

McQueen’s document is referred to as a “perjured petition.”

Still again, Ekl’s petition focuses on McQueen’s role in the investigationL

“McQueen continued to directly lead the second investigation by interviewing witnesses personally and directing the Quest investigators who to interview, what questions to ask, and what information to conceal.”

Again, the charge is made that McQueen and Quest employees had failed “to properly document exculpatory evidence.”

Seven examples are listed.  (See Paragraph 84in the filing.)

Bianchi’s “political enemies” make another appearance in the motion:

“Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators continued to secretly obtain information from Bianchi’s political enemies, in furtherance of the conspiracy to violate the Plaintiffs’ rights by the manufacture and falsification of evidence to arrest, indict, and prosecute Bianchi and other members of the SAO with crimes that they did not commit.

“Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators also revealed confidential information to Bianchi’s political enemies during the course of their investigation.

“Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators concealed their relationship with these individuals until they were recently revealed through discovery on May 23, 2012 in the instant case.”

Complaints that were made about the investigation leading to the second indictment are reiterated as far as its presentation to that Grand Jury.

The following descriptions appear:

  • “unsworn and false statements”
  • “deliberating misled”
  • “knowingly presented manufactured evidence”
  • “concealed”

The investigation and indictment of prcecss server Michael McCleary for using his county car for personal business follows.


Comments

Bianchi on the Attack in Chicago – Part 2 — 5 Comments

  1. The prosecution of Bianchi should never had happened.

    Neither should the prosecution of Amy Dalby that preceded that or the many legal salvo’s that have been launched from the personal grudges of the local political sides since these two initial bad judgement calls.

    I remain hopeful that someone in this county can rise above and move on.

    Unfortunately, as this continued drama shows we just keep diving deeper and deeper into the mud.

  2. Quite to the contrary, “butseriously”.

    The source of all the “mud” has been the other side.

    Clearly Mr. McQueen is the central character in the sham case against Bianchi, but deeper in the “mud” are people who are the spring feeding the dirt.

    McQueen is a loser lawyer who was easily swindled into taking the case for his own financial gain.

    He thought it was a simple way to make some money, and winning the case wasn’t really his goal.

    He was chosen by Graham for this reason; he’d be easy to push forward on a BS case.

    Judge Graham is the tip of the ice-berg of the source of the “mud”, as you call it.

    It’s judge Graham who would be aware of the real dirt bags, and he is the first and easies dirt bag to identify.

    So, if you were an “investigative reporter”, you’d interview judge Graham.

    At political events, you’d follow and see who jugde Graham socializes with.

    It would be quite easy to find those who are really responsible and you’d define their motive.

    Why isn’t there such investigation?

    LOL…..investigative reporters, what a laugh.

  3. I presume, “butseriously”, that you are a Nygren supporter.

    As such, you should be a bit worried what this investigation is about to uncover.

    This investigation, unlike the other one, is led by a competent attorney who could care less about the loser politicians running this provincial county.

    Nygren is close to judge Graham who authorized the original investigation against Bianchi…an investigation by your own words should “never have happened”.

    The case against Bianchi should never have happened, but it did.

    The motivation was corrupt and political.

    Graham and Nygren likely had much to do with it.

    We now just need the evidence to show that.

    The papers aren’t interested in doing work to uncover this.

    Ekl is.

    So, “butseriously”, aren’t you interested in who the bad guys really are?

  4. Not really interested on being on either side of the local battle of tossing special prosecutors back and forth over personal grudges.

    It has done nothing but create drama, hurt people, and cost the county money.

    In case you missed it as you are obviously on one of these local sides.

    The special prosecutor pointed at Bianchi never should had happened, just as he shouldn’t have pointed on at his political enemies.

    I just hope it comes to an end at some point.

    However, I fear both sides are to dug in and the pattern of aiming special prosecutors at ones political enemies in this county will just continue.

    No one who uses a special prosecutor for political purposes will ever again get my vote in this county.

  5. But this case doesn’t involve a “special prosecutor”. This case isn’t even the state moving forward. This is actually the “free market” correcting yet another political-system’s mystake. Ekl is a plaintiff attorney.

    This case should uncover who the real bad guys are. Who created the witch hunt? There have to be “hunters” if there was a witch hunt. McQueen and Graham were just idiot stooges who were too stupid to understand how they were being manipulated. Now, who manipulated them?

    The press should be doing this job. But they are: a) financially bankrupt, b) politically tied to the other side, and c) their “investigative reporters” have remedial minds.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

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


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>