McHenry County Blog

And here’s the public unions’ response:

We Are One Illinois statement on Quinn news conference

Responding to Gov. Pat Quinn’s news conference on pensions held Friday, April 20, Illinois AFL-CIO president Michael Carrigan issued this statement for the We Are One Illinois coalition of unions that represent public employees:

The unions representing public employees are committed to working with Gov. Quinn and the members of the General Assembly to find a solution to the pension funding crisis caused by the state’s failure to pay its share.

It is crucial that the pension problem not be compounded by an unconstitutional solution that is unfair to public employees who have always paid their share. The average public employee pension is just $32,000. Because most public employees do not receive Social Security, this modest pension is their life savings.

Despite the willingness of the unions to engage in substantive discussions, our organizations were not asked to be part of Governor Quinn’s pension working group. We were invited to just four meetings and only a few days ago received any data by which to judge its proposals.

We strongly disagree with the proposals made today. Considering that the subject at hand is the ability of hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans to support themselves in retirement, we believe the proposals are insensitive and irresponsible.

By appearing to endorse these unfair and unconstitutional cuts, the governor has made the process of finding common ground much more difficult.

Forcing public servants to choose between two sharply diminished pension plans is no choice at all. It is a clearly illegal attempt to solve the problem caused by past governors and the legislature solely on the backs of teachers, caregivers and other public workers.

Public employees must be treated and heard as full partners in any substantive discussions. No one has a greater stake in solving the problem than we do. A serious problem deserves a serious effort at a solution. The unions are ready.

A press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office:

ALGONQUIN MAN INDICTED ON FEDERAL MURDER FOR HIRE CHARGES

Rockford – An Algonquin, Ill. man was indicted today and charged with seven counts of using interstate facilities in a murder-for-hire scheme.

The indictment alleges that between Aug. 1 and 4, 2011, JASON W. SMIEKEL, 29, of Algonquin, Illinois, used his cell phone and car with the intent that a murder-for-hire be committed.

If convicted, Smiekel faces up to 10 years of imprisonment and a $250,000 fine for each count. Smiekel is scheduled to be arraigned on the charges tomorrow, Aug. 17, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. before federal Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney.

Smiekel was arrested in Elgin, Ill. on August 4, 2011, on a murder-for-hire charge.

A criminal complaint was filed against Smiekel the following morning in federal court in Rockford, charging him with using a cell phone in a murder-for-hire scheme.

The criminal complaint alleged that Smiekel was arrested in the parking lot of a restaurant in Elgin after passing $7,000 in cash to an undercover ATF special agent who was posing as a “hitman.”

The murder was purportedly scheduled to take place later that day around 5:30 p.m.

The indictment was announced today by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Andrew L. Traver, Special Agent-In-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The ATF’s Rockford office conducted the investigation, with the assistance of the Algonquin Police Department.

A copy of the indictment will available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/rockford/2011/index.html.

The government was represented by Assistant United States Attorney John G.
McKenzie.

Members of the public are reminded that an indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving that defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court Order issued after the U.S. Attorney’s appeal of a pre-trial home detention ruling for Algonquin attorney Jason Smiekel by Magistrate Michael Mahoney in Rockford Federal Judge Frederick J. Kapala on August 11th follows:

= = = = =
Original August 5, 2011, article containing affidavit is here.
= = = = =

STATEMENT

Defendant, Jason W. Smiekel, an attorney licensed in the State of Illinois, is charged by criminal complaint with the use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. This offense is a class C felony punishable by a term of imprisonment not more than 10 years.

The government has appealed a pre-trial release order issued by Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney on August 10, 2011. The government seeks revocation of that order asserting that the imposed conditions of release are not adequate to protect the safety of any other person or of the community. Defendant opposes detention and argues that the conditions of his release are sufficient to ensure the safety of the community.

On August 11, 2011, this court accepted the parties’ evidentiary proffers and heard oral argument on the government’s appeal. For the reasons that follow, the government’s motion to revoke the pre-trial release order is granted and defendant is ordered detained pending trial.

I. BACKGROUND

After finding probable cause, the magistrate judge conducted a detention hearing. At the hearing, both the government and defendant submitted oral proffers to the court.

The magistrate judge denied the United States’ motion for pre-trial detention and entered an order granting pre-trial release. In addition to the standard conditions of pre-trial release and a $4,500 recognizance bond, the magistrate judge imposed the following
conditions:

• the defendant must live at the residence of defendant’s mother and stepfather;
• his mother, a licensed realtor, is a third-party custodian of the defendant;
• the defendant surrender his FOID card and passport;
• no firearms are allowed in his mother’s residence;
• he have no contact with any potential witnesses or alleged intended victims; and
  he is
• the defendant must live at the residence of defendant’s mother and stepfather;
• on “home incarceration” with electronic monitoring at
  defendant’s expense.

At the government’s request, the pre-trial release order was stayed until 5 p.m. on August 11, 2011.

The government has submitted a written evidentiary proffer which is summarized as follows. According to the government, defendant’s motive to kill the intended victim is not completely clear at the present time but it represents that the following events took place in February 2011:

(2) defendant began a romantic relationship with his fiancee;
(3) the fiancee and the intended victim previously had a child together;
(4) defendant represented the intended victim in a contentious state-court proceeding involving, in part, child custody;
(5) the fiancee was the other party in the court proceeding; and
(6) defendant called the intended victim, said that he had been in a bar, had met the fiancee, that they “made out,” and that defendant could no longer represent the intended victim in the state-court proceeding because of “ethics.”FN1

In February 2011, defendant approached one of his friends seeking a hit-man and the friend put defendant in contact with two hit-men. Defendant has claimed that he paid the two hit-men an $8,000 down payment on an agreement to murder the intended victim for $15,000. The two hit-men did not commit the murder and absconded with the money.

In late April to early May 2011, defendant approached one of his clients who owed him attorney’s fees and asked the client to connect him with someone who would “scare” the intended victim.FN2

According to defendant, the intended victim was hurting his girlfriend and her child. Defendant provided the client with a photograph of, and personal details about, the intended victim, including the residence, vehicle, and employment of the intended victim. Defendant indicated that he now wanted someone who would hurt the intended victim and suggested breaking the intended victims’ legs. Later during this meeting, defendant said “it wouldn’t be too
bad if the intended victim was dead.” Thereafter, defendant continued to call the client, asking if the client had found anyone to take care of the intended victim. On June 14, 2011, defendant met with the client, continued to press the client on collection of the attorney’s fees, and told the client to “just kill the ass-hole.” On June 20, 2011, defendant spoke to the client on the telephone and again raised the issue of the client arranging for a
hit-man. The client told defendant that killing the intended victim was not worth it and that defendant could lose everything he had. Defendant responded,

“Will you just think about it?”

A cooperating individual (CI) told two ATF agents that on July 27, 2011, defendant approached him and said that he wanted to have the intended victim murdered in order to prevent the intended victim from giving damaging testimony in a proceeding.FN3  Defendant indicated that his girlfriend’s ex-husband, the intended victim, had information about him that could get him in trouble and lead to a criminal indictment. Defendant wanted to have the intended victim killed prior to a July 29, 2011 court appearance. Defendant told the CI that he previously paid two hit-men a total of $8,000 to murder the intended victim, with the understanding that an
additional $7,000 would be paid upon completion of the task. Defendant indicated that the two males took off with the $8,000 and never committed the murder. Defendant asked the CI if he could “get it done” and indicated that he was willing to pay up to $25,000 for the murder.
On July 28, 2011, the CI told defendant that, “I’m willing to do the 25. What do you need?” Defendant told the CI that the intended victim had evidence that would completely destroy him and that he needed something done by the following day. The CI told defendant that nothing would happen that quickly.

On July 29, 2011, defendant called the CI’s cell phone and indicated that he was able to buy himself more time in regards to thecourt date.

On July 31, 2011, the CI, while equipped with two covert recording devices, met with defendant and told him that he knew an individual named “Chris” who would be willing to complete the task that he and defendant had discussed. Defendant wrote the intended victim’s name, address, and place of employment on a piece of paper, along with a phone number that “Chris” was to use to contact defendant. Defendant told the CI that he still wanted to pay someone to kill the intended victim, that the intended victim was about to “ruin” him, and that he had been reported to the ARDC. Defendant also asked about the proposed cost saying, “I need to be ready
money-wise.” The CI said that defendant again discussed how he had tried to have this done in February 2011 and indicated that he wanted it completed by August 5, 2011. Defendant requested that “Chris” call him on the phone number on the piece of paper.

On August 1, 2011, ATF Special Agent Chris Bayless, posing as a hit-man, called defendant and arranged to meet him at a restaurant. That evening defendant walked out of the restaurant and got into Bayless’ undercover car. Defendant introduced himself as “Jason” and told Bayless that there was a guy who was causing him family problems and problems with his livelihood. Defendant said six months ago he had foreseen troubles and had gone to someone else, but had been ripped off.FN4  Bayless said that he was not sure whether he wanted the job but that for the right price, anything could get taken care of. Defendant said he had a time problem and that the intended victim had “dirt” on him that could ruin his career. Defendant said there was no other solution.

Defendant identified the locations of the intended victim’s place of employment and health club. Bayless said it would cost about “twenty.” Defendant agreed to pay $1,500 up front, described the physical appearance of the intended victim, and agreed to provide a photograph. Defendant and Bayless agreed to meet the following day at the same restaurant.

On August 2, 2011, defendant met Bayless at the restaurant and the meeting was covertly audio and video  recorded. Defendant gave Bayless an envelope containing a small photograph of the intended victim and $1,500 in currency. Bayless said he had already put “things in motion,” and that he planned on making it look like the murder stemmed from a robbery. Defendant said that he would have part of the money on Friday and they discussed how defendant would pay the remainder. Bayless said that he would call defendant when “it’s done.” Bayless said that if he got an earlier opportunity to kill the intended victim, he would take advantage of that and would call defendant after the murder. Otherwise, Bayless would try to kill the intended victim by Thursday and defendant agreed to try and pay Bayless $10,000 right after the murder with the rest of the fee to be paid later. The meeting ended with Bayless saying that he would call defendant when the intended victim was dead.

On August 4, 2011, Bayless and defendant had a series of telephone calls during which Bayless asked whether defendant had the money and defendant said that he had $7,000. According to bank records, on August 3, 2011, defendant’s fiancee withdrew $7,000 in cash from a joint checking account of defendant and his fiancee.FN5

Bayless asked defendant whether he wanted to drive by the scene of the murder in order to confirm that theintended victim had died and defendant indicated that he did not. Defendant said that he trusted Bayless and would provide the $7,000 up front. They agreed to meet at the same restaurant later that day. At approximately 4:17 p.m. on August 4, 2011, Bayless and defendant met in the parking lot of the restaurant. Defendant got into Bayless’ vehicle and handed him an envelope containing $7,000 in United States currency. After discussing how
defendant would pay the rest of the fee for the murder, Bayless gave the arrest signal and ATF special agents arrested defendant.

Defense counsel proffered a conversation that he had with attorney George Collins, defendant’s attorney in connection with the ARDC proceeding. According to counsel, Collins indicated that the ARDC complaint filed by the intended victim was not very serious and that defendant did not receive notice of the claim until July 29, 2011.

II. ANALYSIS

The district court considers appeals under § 3145 de novo. United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 1985). The government only argues that pre-trial conditions are insufficient to assure the safety of persons in the community, not that conditions are insufficient to assure defendant’s appearance in court.

Defendant argues that the conditions of his release are sufficient to ensure the safety of the community. Thus, the issue before the court is whether there is any condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community. The court makes the following findings regarding the applicable § 3142(g) factors using the clear and convincing evidence standard of § 3142(f)(2).

(1) The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense Charged, Including Whether the Offense Is a Crime of Violence, a Federal Crime of Terrorism, or Involves a Minor Victim or a Controlled Substance, Firearm, Explosive, or Destructive Device

The court finds that the charged offense qualifies as a crime of violence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4)(A) (stating that “[a] crime of violence means an offense that has as an element of the offense the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another”). Defendant has not argued to the contrary. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of detaining defendant pending trial.

(2) The Weight of the Evidence Against Defendant

The court finds that the government’s case against the defendant is strong. The government’s proffer indicated that defendant approached multiple parties over a seven-month time frame in an effort to have the intended victim murdered.

Even after being “ripped off” by the first two hit-men and being told by one of his clients that it was a bad idea, defendant persisted in finding someone to perform the murder. A substantial portion of defendant’s efforts to hire someone to kill the intended victim are corroborated in recorded conversations.

The only arguments defendant advances against the conclusion that the evidence against him is strong are  that:

1. he categorically denies the allegations in the government’s proffer;
2. it makes little sense that he would attempt to kill the intended victim in February 2011when he only just met his fiancee that month; and
3. defendant had no motive arising out of the purported ARDC complaint on July 27, 2011, because he did not receive notice of the complaint until July 29, 2011.

These arguments are not persuasive. The first argument is not an argument at all. Defendant’s second argument seems to suggest that it takes time to form the intent to kill.

The court is not sure that is true. In any event, the evidence of defendant’s efforts to hire someone to kill the intended victim encompass more than event occurring in February 2011. As for the third argument, the evidence suggests that the ARDC complaint is only one of multiple motives defendant had to have the intended victim killed. Moreover, the proffered evidence shows that defendant was trying to have the intended victim killed before and after he received notice of the ARDC complaint. Therefore, whether defendant had notice of the ARDC claim on July 27 or July 29 is not significant. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the
government’s case against the defendant is strong and this factor weighs in favor of detaining defendant pending
trial.

(3) The History and Characteristics of the Person

The court acknowledges that defendant apparently has no criminal history, defendant is a licensed attorney in this State, and has ties in the Northern District of Illinois such as the fact that his mother and step-father reside in the district. Nevertheless, even though some of the components of the history and characteristics factor favor release, under the circumstances this factor is insufficient to outweigh the other § 3142(g) factors that weigh in favor of detention.

(4) The Nature and Seriousness of the Danger to Any Person or the Community That Would Be Posed by the Person’s Release

The nature and seriousness of the danger in this case is of the gravest type, the possible loss of human life.

The facts alleged in the government’s evidentiary proffer point to a murder for hire.

According to a yet unnamed friend, defendant hired two hit- men to kill the intended victim in February 2011. Defendant confirmed this fact when he told the CI and Bayless that he tried to hire someone in the past but was ripped off. Defendant told his client that “it wouldn’t be too bad if the intended victim was dead” and “just kill the ass-hole.” Defendant asked the CI if he could “get it done,” indicated that he was willing to pay up to $25,000 for the murder, and was receptive to meeting with “Chris,” the hit-man that the CI referred to defendant. Defendant told Bayless that “there was no other solution,” hired him to kill the intended victim, and paid him $8,500 of the agreed $20,000 price. Notably, defendant made no protest of mistake or misunderstanding to Bayless’ remark “I’ll call you when he is dead.”

The court agrees with the government that the conditions of pre-trial release, including home incarceration under electronic monitoring, are not conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of the intended victim. Such measures are reactionary and not preventative and defendant has demonstrated a willingness to terminate the life of people who interfere with his desires, including the intended victim and ostensibly the two hit men who took his money. Even under home confinement and electronic monitoring defendant would have at his disposal various ways of can be done to the intended victim or any witness in this case would certainly be focused on defendant, any deterrent effect this creates is overshadowed by defendant’s persistence over the past seven months to have the intended victim killed.

III. CONCLUSION

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combinations of conditions of pretrial release will reasonably assure the safety of persons in the community. Consequently, the government’s motion is granted, the pre-trial release order is revoked, and defendant is ordered detained pending trial.

= = = = =

Footnotes:
1. The government informs the court that much of this information was not presented before the magistrate judge either because it was not yet available or to protect the identity of the intended victim. In response, defense counsel took the position that only the facts that the fiancee withdrew $7,000 and the relationship between defendant and his fiancee were not presented to the magistrate judge. In light of the fact that this court “may start from scratch, ” United States v. Torres, 929 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir. 1991), it is not essential that the court determine what was and was not presented to the magistrate judge.

2. At the hearing, the attorney for the government supplemented the written proffer by indicating that the client was someone who has an affiliation with a violent motorcycle club.

3. Since the detention hearing before the magistrate, the government has learned that in July 2011 the intended victim filed a complaint against defendant with the ARDC. On July 27, 2011, the intended victim received correspondence from the ARDC stating that it had received his complaint and had requested that defendant respond to the allegations.

4. At a subsequent meeting with Bayless, defendant said that if the two hit men tried to make trouble for him, he might have to hire Bayless again.

5. The government informs the court that this information was received on August 11, 2011, and was not presented to the magistrate judge at the detention hearing.

Here is the paperwork for the murder for hire arrest of Algonquin lawyer Jason W. Smiekel:

= = = = =

See also Aug 11, 2011, court order about Smiekel’s being kept in jail.

= = = = =

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS )
) ss.
WESTERN DIVISION )
AFFIDAVIT

I, Sarah A. Tucker, being duly sworn, depose and state the following:

1. I am a Special Agent (“S/A”) for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), United States Department of Justice, and have been so employed since September 2003. I am currently assigned to the Rockford Satellite Office, conducting investigations involving the unlawful possession and/or sale of firearms and narcotics. My formal education includes a B.A. in Criminology received from Northern Illinois University and an M.A. in Law Enforcement and Justice Administration from Western Illinois University. I have also successfully completed the Criminal Investigator Training Program and the ATF New Professional Training Program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia.

2. This affidavit is submitted in support of the issuance of a complaint against JASON W. SMIEKEL for using an interstate commerce facility in the commission of a murder-for-hire, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958. I make this affidavit with personal knowledge based on my participation in this investigation, including

• witnesses I interviewed or which were interviewed by other law enforcement agents,
• communications with others who have personal knowledge of the events and circumstances described herein, and
• information gained through my training and experience.

The information outlined below is provided for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause and does not contain all of the details or facts relating to this investigation of which I am aware.

3. This Affidavit describes portions of recorded and unrecorded conversations. To the extent that such communications are summarized, those summaries do not necessarily refer to all of the topics covered during the conversation.

In addition, the summaries do not include every conversation made by each speaker on the topic being described. Portions of the conversations that are quoted are preliminary quotations and may be modified upon further review. For some conversations, I have offered in parentheses my understandings and/or interpretations of the conversation. My understandings and/or interpretations are based upon my experience and knowledge of the investigation to date, the content and context of the conversations, the experience of other ATF Special Agents with whom I have consulted, and my training and experience as a Special Agent.

The Cooperating Individual

4. On Saturday, July 30, 2011, ATF S/A Dan Ivancich and I met with a cooperating individual (hereafter the “CI”) who provided the following information:

a. On Wednesday, July 27th, 2011, he had been approached by an individual he knows as “Jason.” Jason drives a white Lexus and resides on Sandy Creek Drive in Algonquin, Illinois. Jason said he wanted to have an individual (hereinafter referred to as “intended victim”) murdered in order to prevent the intended victim from giving damaging testimony in a proceeding.

b. Jason is an attorney and had recently represented his girlfriend in her divorce case. Jason indicated his girlfriend’s ex-husband, the intended victim, has information about Jason that could get Jason in trouble and lead to a criminal indictment. Jason had wanted to have the intended victim killed prior to a court appearance that was scheduled to be held on Friday, July 29, 2011.

c. Jason said he previously paid two males a total of $8,000 to murder the intended victim, with the understanding that an additional $7,000 would be paid upon completion of the task. Jason indicated that the two males took off with the $8,000 and never committed the murder. Jason asked if the CI could “get it done” and Jason indicated that he was willing to pay up to $25,000 for the murder.

d. On Thursday, July 28, 2011, Jason again approached the CI.Jason asked, “What do you got for me?” and stated, “I’m willing to do the 25. What do you need?” Jason reiterated that the intended victim has evidence that would completely destroy Jason and that Jason needed something done by the following day.

The CI told Jason that nothing would happen that quickly. On Friday, July 29, 2011, Jason called the CI’s cell phone. Jason indicated that he had been able to buy himself more time in regards to the court date.

5. The CI showed S/A Ivancich and me the call log on the CI’s cellular phone and advised that Jason had used phone number (815) 909-5500 to call the CI. The CI indicated that Jason had called the CI two times on the morning of July 30, 2011, but the CI had not answered the phone. In looking at the CI’s telephone, I  observed two missed calls from (815) 909-5500 which were received at 9:26 a.m. and 10:50 a.m. on July 30, 2011.

6. The CI agreed to make a recorded phone call to Jason in order to attempt to arrange for another meeting. In the presence of agents, the CI made a recorded call to (815) 909-5500, and then indicated that the call went to voicemail.

Approximately thirty minutes later, the CI advised me that he had received a call from Jason, who had relayed that he was currently out of town but would be willing to meet the following day.

7. I conducted an inquiry of Lexis/Nexis, an informational database, and learned that JASON W. SMIEKEL was associated with the same address on Sandy Creek Drive in Algonquin, Illinois, as had been provided by the CI. A driver’s license inquiry confirmed that SMIEKEL fit the physical description provided by the CI.

When I showed the CI a photograph of JASON W. SMIEKEL that I had obtained though the driver’s license inquiry, the CI positively identified the photograph as the individual the CI knew as Jason. The CI advised that he has known Jason as an acquaintance for 4 to 5 years.

July 31, 2011 Meeting

8. On Sunday, July 31, 2011, the CI advised S/A Ivancich and me that the CI had spoken with SMIEKEL earlier that day and that the CI had asked if they could meet that evening. I looked at the call log on the CI’s phone and it indicated an outgoing call to (815) 909-550 at 11:10 a.m. and an incoming call from (815) 909-5500 at 11:16 a.m. At approximately 6:16 p.m., at my request, the CI made a recorded phone call to (815) 909-5500 and spoke with SMIEKEL. During the call, SMIEKEL said he was currently unavailable but could meet with the CI at 8:00 p.m. that evening.

Later that day, S/A Ivancich and I gave the CI with two covert recording devices to use during the meeting. We told the CI to advise SMIEKEL that the CI knew an individual named “Chris” who would be willing to complete the task (referring to the murder for hire) that SMIEKEL had discussed.

9. On the evening of July 31, 2011, the CI had a recorded meeting with SMIEKEL. After the meeting, S/A Ivancich and I met with the CI. The CI turned over the recording equipment to S/A Ivancich, and provided a piece of torn white paper with handwriting in blue ink. The CI said SMIEKEL had written the intended victim’s name on the piece of paper along with a phone number that “Chris” was to use to contact SMIEKEL.

The piece of paper contained the intended victim’s name, address in McHenry County, Illinois, and place of employment. The piece of paper also contained telephone number (213) 509-0487.

The CI said that SMIEKEL still wanted to pay someone to kill the intended victim and had written the intended victim’s name and address on the provided piece of paper.

The CI said SMIEKEL had again discussed how he had tried to have this done (via the previously mentioned unknown males) in February 2011. SMIEKEL said he wanted it completed by Friday, August 5, 2011. SMIEKEL was receptive to meeting with “Chris” and requested that “Chris” call SMIEKEL on the phone number on the piece of paper. I reviewed the recordings of the meeting between the CI and SMIEKEL. While the audio was recorded, the video did not record the meeting.

While reviewing the audio recording of the meeting, I confirmed the information provided by the CI during the debriefing.

During the meeting SMIEKEL said his last name was SMIEKEL. SMIEKEL again indicated that the intended victim was about to “ruin” SMIEKEL and that SMIEKEL had been reported to the ARDC. I know from my experience and training that ARDC is commonly used to refer to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

SMIEKEL asked about the proposed cost saying, “I need to be ready money-wise.”

10. On Monday, August 1, 2011, I conducted an online query in the McHenry County Circuit Clerk Online Public Case Access system. The system indicated that the intended victim is currently listed as a defendant in a family court matter in McHenry County. I also conducted an online query of the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission which lists SMIEKEL as a licensed attorney in the State of Illinois. However, under the heading of “Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings” was listed “none”.

August 1, 2010, ATF Undercover Meeting

11. On Monday, August 01, 2011, ATF S/A Chris Bayless, acting in an undercover capacity posing as a “hitman,” called cell phone number (213) 509-0487 and spoke with SMIEKEL. During the recorded conversation, SMIEKEL agreed to meet that evening at a restaurant on Randall Road in Elgin, Illinois. At approximately 6:50 p.m., S/A Bayless entered the parking lot at the restaurant. S/A Bayless called SMIEKEL on the cellular phone and described the type of vehicle S/A Bayless was in. Shortly thereafter, SMIEKEL walked out of a restaurant and got into S/A Bayless’s undercover car. S/A Bayless and SMIEKEL drove around. I have reviewed the video and audio recordings of the meeting and the following summarizes the meeting:

a. SMIEKEL introduced himself as “Jason” and got into S/A Bayless’s car. S/A Bayless asked SMIEKEL what he had going on. SMIEKEL said there was a guy who was causing SMIEKEL family problems and problems with his livelihood. SMIEKEL said six months ago he had foreseen troubles and had gone to someone else, but that SMIEKEL had been ripped off. S/A Bayless said that he wasn’t sure whether he wanted the job but that for the right price, anything could get taken care of.

b. SMIEKEL said he had a time problem and that the intended victim had “dirt” on SMIEKEL that could ruin SMIEKEL’S career. SMIEKEL said there was no other solution (meaning that the victim had to be killed).

SMIEKEL identified the locations of the intended victim’s place of employment
and health club. S/A Bayless said it would cost about “twenty” (meaning $20,000).

SMIEKEL discussed how he could obtain the money to pay S/A Bayless and
agreed to pay $1,500 of the fee up front. SMIEKEL described the physical
appearance of the intended victim and agreed to provide a photograph of the
intended victim to S/A Bayliss. They agreed to meet the following day at the same restaurant.

August 2, 2011 ATF Undercover Meeting

12. On August 2, 2011, at approximately 11:39 a.m., S/A Bayless received a telephone call from (213) 509-0487. S/A Bayless did not answer and the call went to voicemail. He activated a recording device and called SMIEKEL back at (213) 509-0487. SMIEKEL indicated he was running late and would be at the restaurant at approximately 12:45 p.m. At approximately 12:39 p.m., SMIEKEL used cellular number (213) 509-0487 to call S/A Bayless. During the call,
SMIEKEL indicated that he had arrived at the restaurant. S/A Bayless entered the parking lot in an undercover vehicle and parked. S/A Bayless went into the restaurant, met briefly with SMIEKEL, and they both went to S/A Bayless’s car.

The meeting was recorded both for audio and video. I have reviewed the video and audio recordings of the meeting and the following summarizes the meeting:

a. SMIEKEL had obtained a different phone and had S/A Bayless use his cell phone to call SMIEKEL’S new phone number, (818) 235-3945.

SMIEKEL gave S/A Bayless an envelope containing a small photograph of the intended victim and $1,500 in currency. S/A Bayless said he had already put “things in motion,” and that he planned on making it look like the murder stemmed from a robbery. SMIEKEL said that he would have part of the money on Friday and they discussed how SMIEKEL would later pay the remainder. S/A Bayless said that he would call SMIEKEL when “it’s done” (meaning the murder had been committed).

b. S/A Bayless said that if he got an earlier opportunity to kill the intended victim, he would take advantage of that and would call SMIEKEL after the murder.

SMIEKEL agreed to get $5,000 to pay S/A Bayless as early as the following day. Otherwise, S/A Bayless would try to kill the intended victim by Thursday and SMIEKEL agreed to try and pay S/A Bayless $10,000 right after the murder with the rest of the fee to be paid later. The meeting ended with S/A Bayless saying he would call SMIEKEL when the intended victim was dead.

August 4, 2011

13. Beginning at approximately 2:05 p.m. on August 4, 2011, S/A Bayless and SMIEKEL had a series of telephone calls with SMIEKEL using the cell phone (818) 235-3945.

During these calls, S/A Bayless asked whether SMIEKEL had the money and SMIEKEL said that he had $7,000. S/A Bayless asked whether SMIEKEL wanted to drive by the scene of the murder in order to confirm that the intended victim had died and SMIEKEL indicated that he did not want to do so.

SMIEKEL said that he trusted S/A Bayless and would provide the $7,000 up front.

They agreed to meet at the same restaurant on Randall Road at 4:30 p.m. later that
day.

14. At approximately 4:17 p.m., S/A Bayless and SMIEKEL met in a parking lot of the restaurant on Randall Road in Elgin, Illinois. SMIEKEL got into S/A Bayless’s vehicle and gave an envelope containing $7,000 in United States currency to S/A Bayless. After discussing how SMIEKEL would pay the rest of the fee for the murder, S/A Bayless gave the arrest signal and ATF special agents then arrested SMIEKEL.

Interstate Facilities

15. According to a computer search for the service providers for the cellular telephones that SMIEKEL used to call and to receive calls from S/A Bayless, telephone numbers (213) 509-0487 and (818) 235-3945, the service provider for both telephones is New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, now AT&T on the Web, an international telecommunications company. Each cellular telephone was a facility of interstate commerce.

Conclusion

16. Based on the above information, I have probable cause to believe that JASON W. SMIEKEL has utilized a facility of interstate commerce, namely a cellular telephone, with the intent that a murder be committed in violation of laws of the State of Illinois, with something of value, namely money, being received and promised to be paid in consideration for the murder, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958.
_____________________________
Sarah A. Tucker
Special Agent
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

Sergio Chaves, 19, of Chicago was charged with one felony count of possession of an unregistered destructive device.

From what I read in the affidavit of Eric Dornbusch, a special Agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives. the 19-year old may have figured out how to make a bomb, but he didn’t figure out a lot of other details of how to commit a crime without being detected.

Here are some examples of what one should not do that Chaves did:

• He called the Evanston Police Substation and told the office he was making a bomb and intended to use it in Skokie or Evanston the same day. (She recognized his voice.)


the words "Once Upon a Time" appear on the DVD movie box cover, the other part of which was found in the kid's room.

• He called four hours later and told the office that the bomb was behind the Substation in a garbage can.
• In the bag with the bomb was part of a DVD movie cover.  He left the other part in his room at home.
• There was also part of a black watch box.  The rest was in his room.
• There was a 22 caliber bullets in the bomb.  Two more were in his room.
• There were about forty nails that the guy hoped would be shrapnel.  He left one just like it in his room at home.
• 

  The garbage container behind the Evanston Police Substation where the bomb was placed.

  An officer called the about five hours later at 1:35 AM an revealed he had been given the “bomb” and delivered it to the Police Station.

• Then, he agreed to come to the Police Station.  He arrived about 3 AM.
• The guy said he thought he was being given marijuana, but later figured out it was a bomb.
• At 6 AM he consented to have his apartment (number 506) at 6030 N. Kenmore, searched.  He lived with his father.
• At 11 AM he admitted he built the bomb and put it in the trash can.

The admitted bomb maker said he wanted to make some money from tipping off the police about the bomb.

This guy is more than one brick short of a load.

I wonder if he can plead “diminished capacity.”