McHenry County Blog

Columbia Journalism School grad Pete Gonigam, Editor of the First Electric Newspaper, wrote an article last Thursday about the legal problems of District 1 McHenry County Board member Robert Bless.

Bless is running for re-election this fall, along with two other incumbents and one who lost the 2010 primary election and seeks a comeback.

The Democrats are running only one candidate.

Gonigam reports information from the Cook County Sheriff’s Department, where Bless is employed.

Gonigam talked to Bless at the Rolling Meadows Cook County Circuit Court, where he is stationed.

In addition, Gonigam mentions the open Attorney and Disciplinary Commission’s investigation.   You can read the complaint here.

On top of that Gonigam reports on a Cook County Grand Jury investigation.

There’s also a civil suit that Gonigam uncovered.

Since he did the research, you should go to the original source.

Thought people would be interested in seeing complaints people make about Illinois attorneys.

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

“Second verse, same as the first,”

was the line running through my had as I drove home from the Courthouse.

Judge Joseph McGraw had just acquitted McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi of the two remaining counts of official misconduct brought by Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan and the assistant he picked, Thomas McQueen.

Just as he did on the first try to “get” Lou Bianchi.

A third count in the current case about a young man who was allowed into a First Time Offender program that started after his crime was committed was so weak that McQueen withdrew it at the beginning of the trial.

After arguments and rebuttals for a directed verdict of acquittal had been made, McGraw withdrew to consider and formulate his decision. What he announced would be a 45-minute recess lasted another 20.

The result was a list of reasons behind his decision and an outlining of his thought processes as the “finder of fact,” this being a bench trial.

First McGraw decimated the use of the Equal Protection clause of the Illinois State Constitution.

McQueen had argued that miscreants not “related” (defined quite loosely) to State’s Attorney Investigator Ron Salgado were being discriminated against by Salgado’s purported attempt to assist a 19-year old great step-nephew.

“Felony defendants are not a protected class,” McGraw said referring to part of his decision when he dismissed the Special Prosecutor’s charges against Salgado.  Those “not related to Ron Salgado” are not “an identifiable class.”

If McQueen’s arguments were accepted, McGraw said, “It would create (a situation in which) anyone at any time could assert they are a class of one.

“That would swallow up the role of (the Equal Protection under the law clause).”

McGraw ruled as “a matter of law Counts 1 and 3 fail.”

But, as in the first case in which Bianchi assistant Joyce Synek was a co-defendant, McGraw went further.

Bianchi’s attorney explained that not only was there a failure to charge Bianchi properly, there was a failure to proved that Bianchi “committed an act of of official misconduct and he did something he knew by a matter of law he was forbidden to do.”

Addressing McQueen’s contention that Bianchi had a duty to recuse (not participate) in the two cases because of Rule 12 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Illinois attorneys.

McGraw noted, “It is not plead or alleged, but it’s important to note that I don’t think it applies.”

He read the text, which talks of conflict of interest resulting from concurrently representing more than one client.

“I do not find there will be a material risk (of such a conflict),” he concluded.

McGraw then focused on how Bianchi had acted in both cases. He concluded that no evidence had been presented that either case had not been “handled in the ordinary course of business.”

No special treatment in the disposition of the cases was what I heard.

If the woman wanted the man prosecuted he would have been.

The 4-year, instead of 5-year sentence had been requested by the Public Defender and agreed to by the Assistant State’s Attorney.

McGraw when “even if” then.

“Even if there was evidence that he was (Salgado’s) nephew (even in the colloquial sense), there was no material impediment to his (Bianchi’s) doing his duty.”

Same with the other case, the Judge said.

“I can comment on whether there could be an appearance of impropriety. That’s something that has been offered.

“In each case, the ordinary course of business (led to the ) ultimate outcome.”

In each case, he continued, “the ultimate outcome had been initiated by the defendant’s attorney (and) ultimately received the blessing by Mr. Bianchi and Mr. Harmon (the Public Defender in the 19-year old’s narcotics case) and the disposition was actually entered.”

“None of this affected how Mr. Bianchi performed his duties. It was a matter of “Damned if you do and damned if you don’t”

“Were Mr. Bianchi’s duties to McHenry County citizens (impaired)?

“I cannot find that he had a duty to recuse himself, that, even if he had a duty to recuse himself, that this was not a violation of law.”

The Judge said that recourse on a complaint that a State’s Attorney should have, but did not recuse himself from a case “would be a complaint to the Attorney’s Registration and Disciplinary Commission.”

“I’m not saying reasonable people can’t disagree, (but) I do not find a violation or that (it) amounts (to a) violation of law sufficient (to rise to a criminal offense).”

He said further that the “remedy is for the judge to deal with instanter or notify the ARDC.

“By my ruling, I do not intend to ratify or agree with every decision and what happened in the State’s Attorney’s Office, the remedy (is the ARDC).”

McGraw then spoke of the duty of state’s attorneys.

He said that without a “free standing basis no prosecutor could do his or her job.”

The use of the Rule in question in this case “is not the intention of the Rule.”

He pointed out that the Rules of Professional Conduct are not designed for “civil liability and, one would infer, criminal liability.”

McGraw advised the courtroom that whether what Bianchi did was proper or not was “for the electorate to decide whether he is properly discharging his duties.”

Among findings of fact were that

• the “nephew” is not related to Mr. Salgado
• it has not been proven there has been a disadvantage based on membership in a class of persons (not being a friend of Salgado or a friend/contributor of Bianchi)
• Mr. Bianchi did not fail supervise (non-attorney) Salgado
• there was not any evidence that anyone was discriminated against who were not in the “classes” McQueen argued existed

Then the judge entered a judgment of acquittal.

Monday, McQueen could have completed his case, but announced two witnesses remained.   After Monday’s presentation of witnesses, McQueen concluded his case without calling one of the two.

The reason may have been the first, the mother of a young man for whom McQueen charged Bianchi had lowered the sentence from 5 to 4 years because of a personal relationship, testified that Bianchi had told the family the result of the plea agreement outside her son’s courtroom and nothing else. The other announced, but missing witness was the 19-year old’s grandfather, whose name appeared on a Bianchi fund raising invitation list.

After McQueen closed his case Bianchi defense attorney Terry Ekl commenced a blistering of McQueen’s case.  You can read his entire motion here.

Back in September. 2010, Ekl called the first case “Chickens**t.” I didn’t ask him if he felt vindicated then, but today out in front of the courthouse, commenting on the second directed verdict for Bianchi, he said, “These charges never should have been brought.  It was not a good faith prosecution.

“A state’s attorney is going to make enemies.”

• “Sometimes judges don’t like you.
• “Sometimes lawyers don’t like you.
• “Sometimes police don’t like you.”

Ekl said that state’s attorneys all over Illinois were watching this case.

That a Special Prosecutor could be appointed to second guess a state’s attorney was “a frightening concept.”

He related a person’s observation of the two greatest powers that government has

• to got to war
• to indict

“These Special Prosecutors have abused their power.”

Questions were asked concerning

• whether a civil suit was in the offing
• whether Bianchi would ask taxpayers to pay his legal expenses
• whether Bianchi would run for re-election

The answer to the first question was Lou would look at all aspects.  If we do engage in additional litigation, we will go 110%.

The answer to the second question?

“Over the next week or so Lou and I will be sitting down and talking about legal bills.”

Concerning re-election, no real answer either.

Personal feelings of Bianchi and how did the second trial compare with the first?

“I was confident after the first trial and fearful, but less fearful (concerning the second),” Bianchi answered.

Would Bianchi have done anything differently?

“I would not share my sympathy for someone else who had been blasted in the press,” he said.

The Northwest Herald’s story is here.

The Daily Herald story is here.

The Chicago Tribune story is here.

The Chicago Sun-Times story is here.

The Crystal Lake Patch story is here.

The First Electric Newspaper story is here.

= = = = =
Bianchi had previously scheduled a fund raiser for August 18th.  Details below:

Six citizens represented by McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s Defense Counsel Terry Ekl have asked to be interveners in Judge Gordon Graham’s secret supervision of Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan and Thomas McQueen.

The six, all supporters of Bianchi, are pointing out in their court filing that state statute requires that special prosecutors be competent.

And that Tonigan and McQueen were incompetent.

Read what Rockford Judge Joseph McGraw said while rendering his oral decision.

The six complaining citizens are

• Mary Alger of Crystal Lake
• Bob Borchert of Crystal Lake
• Thomas Crane of Woodstock
• Ria and John Reckamp of Crystal Lake
• Anthony Scimeca of Wonder Lake

Borchert, the Reckamps and Scimeca were at the press conference in front of the Courthouse’s main entrance.

Borchert, a former FBI Agent and current Republican Precinct Committeeman in Crystal Lake sat through the trial. He noted that there was never a directed verdict in any of his cases.

Why was he such a strong supporter of Bianchi?

“Lou restored my faith in attorneys” in a case Bianchi handled for Borchert’s wife.

Borchert said the case against Bianchi was “a witch hunt” initiated when they “found out they couldn’t control him.”

The “they” was not identified.

“I thought this was a fishing expedition,” John Reckamp said, adding that he objected to the expense.

Scimeca, an elected member of the Greenwood-Alden-Hebron Fire Protection District, stated it was the “patriotic” thing to do.

He said he wanted to make sure “the system stays accountable to itself and the citizens (so) that none of us is held to a different a different standard.”

Ekl was unwilling to share the multi-page document he was filing with the Circuit Court because the case has been sealed by Judge Graham, but he did urge news media to join him in seeking to unseal the case.

Ekl was in full attack mode.

“There never was any basis for bringing the case.”

Ekl charged the prosecutors with starting with a conclusion–that Bianchi would be indicted–and then looking for a reason.

“They did everything they could to find a reason to indict Lou Bianchi, (they were) acting in bad faith.”

Asked about criticism of the motions being filed–with Bianchi’s knowledge–Ekl said, “Lou’s enemies can make any accusations they wish.”

One of those is Sheriff Keith Nygren, the other Republican Party law enforcement officer in the courthouse.

Nygren’s office refused permission for cameras to be brought into the second floor of the courthouse, where the press conference was first scheduled.

Not official business may have been the excuse.

But that possibility brought to mind how anyone is allowed to hold a press conference in the press room at the State Capitol.

Eck expressed no resentment, however, to having to make his presentation outside in the wind.

Ekl told of the approximately one million pieces of paper produced during the discover phase of the trial.

How bad was the case?

“Twenty-one of twenty-two counts were found defectively pled.

“In all twenty-two (Judge Joesph McGraw) found lack of evidence.

“That means the case should have never been brought,” Ekl said.

“(The directed verdict was) an absolute slap at the competency of the prosecutors.”

Referring to the Quest forensic computer expert as”an alleged computer expert,” Ekl charged he added nothing to the trial, but charge for 345 hours at $250 per hour.

Here are the bills that have been made public so far. They are from the investigators that Tonigan hired, a firm called Quest International. $225,000 with bills for several months not yet submitted.

Elk said there were overcharges and double billing.

• Homework for McHenry County Board
• More Homework for the McHenry County Board
• $20,800 More Quest Bills for McHenry County Board Members To Study
• Final Homework Assignment for McHenry County Board

When I asked Special Prosecutor Tonigan how much he was billing an hour, I got a “No comment.”

When I asked how much Tonigan should be paid, he referenced the State’s Attorney’s salary, which works out to $80 per hour.

Ekl though some addition amount per hour would be appropriate to cover overhead.

In 1999, Ekl got paid $125 an hour in the DuPage Seven case.

In seeking the Special Prosecutors’ dismissal, Ekl suggested that an employee of another State’s Attorney’s Office could be brought it at no expense to taxpayers.

Two other tidbits came up:

• One had to do with whether unnamed lawyers had assisted in the case. If they were paid, unsealing the bills would indicate that, Ekl thought. “I can almost guarantee you that there are lawyers working on this case that are not Special Prosecutors.”
• The second came when I asked if this could lead to an ARDC (Attorney’s Registration and Disciplinary Commission) complaint. “It could. It’s possible.”

Asked Bianchi’s reaction to the filing:

“He’s as concerned as anyone else at the county’s being ripped off.”

Comments have been closed on articles about criminal cases by the Northwest Herald since sometime earlier this year.

On the felony indictment of McHenry County State’s Attorney, however, comments are being allowed.

Just an observation. Draw your own conclusion.

= = = = =
A friend of McHenry County Blog notes that the NW Herald is prohibiting comments on today’s article about County Board member Bob Bless’ problems with the Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission. It is not a criminal case.

If you would like to read the ARDC, you can find here or here.

A complaint has been filed by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission against attorney Robert Bless.

Bless was elected as a Republican to a District 1 McHenry County Board seat in 2008.

You can read the ARDC complaint here or here.