McHenry County Blog

When Federal Magistrate Daniel Martin gave Aurora teenager Abdella Ahmad Tounisi a get-out-of-jail card, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago strongly objected.

Today U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang reversed Martin’s decision.

Below you can read the argument made successfully to a Federal Judge today. It resulted in Tounisi’s remaining in the Federal lockup.

I. The Section 3142(g) Factors Weigh in Favor of Detention

A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense Charged

Two weeks ago, the defendant attempted to board a flight to Istanbul, Turkey, with the intention of traveling to Syria and joining an Al Qaedasponsored terrorist organization known as Jabhat al-Nusrah. [FN2] The defendant’s attempt join this terrorist group was the culmination of months of planning, much of which the defendant’s family, including the third-party custodian, knew about. As described below, the defendant persisted in his plans despite all efforts by his parents, other relatives, and religious leaders to dissuade him from traveling overseas to engage in violent jihad.
= = = = =
FN2 Jabhat al-Nusrah is a jihadist militant group operating inside Syria. On or about December 11, 2012, the United States Department of State amended the Foreign Terrorist Organization and Executive Order 13224 designations of al-Qaida in Iraq
(AQI) to include the following aliases: Jabhat al-Nusrah, al-Nusrah Front, Jabhet al-Nusra, The Victory Front, and Al-Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant. The Department of State previously designated AQI a Foreign Terrorist Organization
under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act on or about December 15, 2004.
= = = = =

In the months leading up to the defendant’s attempt to leave the country, the defendant performed extensive online research related to martyrdom and violent jihad, such as searches for:

• 1/19/2013: “shaykh sulayman ibn nasir al’ulwan [FN3] verdict
  permissibility martyrdom operations”;
• 1/24/2013: “shahada [FN4] before death”;
• 1/24/2013: “shaheed [FN5] before he dies”;
• 2/14/2013: “ayman al Zawahiri”[FN6]; and
• 3/26/2013: “martyrdom operations.”

= = = = =
FBN3 Sulayman ibn Nasir Al’ulwan is an Islamic scholar from the early fifteenth century who offered a defense of martyrdom operations.

FN4 “Shahada” is an Arabic word that, in this context, appears to refer to martyrdom.

FN5 “Shaheed” is an Arabic word that means martyr.

FN6 Ayman al-Zawahiri is the current leader of al-Qaeda.
= = = = =
The defendant’s plans for martyrdom centered on the terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusrah, a group that has pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri and Al Qaeda. According to a release issued by the Department of State on December 11, 2012, since November 2011, this designated terrorist organization has claimed nearly 600 terrorist attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers in Syria, leading to the death of “numerous innocent Syrians.”

The defendant was well aware of Jabhat al-Nusrah’s violent exploits and its affiliation with Al Qaeda. He spent countless hours watching videos of Jabhat al-Nusrah suicide bombings and poured over articles about the group’s ties to Al Qaeda (and even articles about its designation by the United States State Department).

As the defendant immersed himself in media and other propaganda relating to Jabhat al-Nusrah, he resolved to leave behind his life in Americaand join the group.

To get to Syria, he decided to fly from Chicago to Istanbul,Turkey, and then travel from Istanbul to Gaziantep, Turkey, a city that lies near the border of Turkey and Syria.

Importantly, the defendant’s plans to leave for Syria were no mystery to the proposed third-party custodian, the defendant’s father.

In a phone call from January 5, 2013, the defendant’s father told the defendant’s mother, “Ah . . . your son is thinking of going to Syria,” and asked, “Did you take the passport from him?” [FN7]

The defendant’s mother replied, “Yes . . . I took it.”

The family was also aware of the defendant’s fixation on engaging in a suicide operation.

On January 29, 2013, the defendant’s mother spoke to a relative about “not surrendering to [the defendant’s] wishes.”

The relative remarked that she warned the defendant, ‘“If you go, do not think you will die a martyr, you will die like a road kill.’’’

= = = = =
FN7 At the May 2, 2013 detention hearing, the government provided to the judge and counsel a binder with excerpts of certain recorded phone calls. The government will deliver a copy of this binder to the Court before the hearing tomorrow.
= = = = =

Yet seizing the defendant’s passport and urging him not to kill himself in battle did nothing to stop him. On March 1, 2013, the defendant applied for and obtained a P.O. Box in Aurora, Illinois. On that same day, he submitted a signed application for an expedited United States passport, claiming that he sought to travel to Jordan for 10-20 days on June 15, 2013.

The defendant also submitted a signed “Statement Regarding a Lost or Stolen Passport” in which the defendant claimed his previous passport had been lost, when in fact it had been taken by his parents. The defendant directed that the passport be sent to his new P.O. Box.

On March 28, 2013, while performing a search for Jabhat al-Nusrah propaganda, the defendant visited English and Arabic versions of a website that purported to recruit individuals to travel to Syria and join Jabhat al-Nusrah (it was in fact maintained by the FBI).

The top portion of the webpage stated, “A Call for Jihad in Syria,” and depicted a photograph of an armed fighter. The website also included a purported Jabhat al-Nusrah training video, which the defendant viewed. That video depicted individualswearing masks and fatigues, and engaging in training, such as running with firearms. The website stated, “come and join your lion brothers of Jabhat Al-Nusra who are fighting under the true banner of Islam, come and join your brothers, the heroes of Jabhat Al-Nusra.”

The defendant reached out to the website’s purported recruiter, who infact was an FBI online undercover employee (“the OCE”).

The defendant and the OCE exchanged several emails, during which the defendant told the OCE that he planned to leave for Syria by traveling to Istanbul, Turkey, and then from Istanbul to Gaziantep, a Turkish city that lies near the border of Turkey and Syria.

The defendant told the OCE that “if the opportunity is given to me to attain shahada [martyrdom] I will take it.”

On April 10, 2013, despite having no employment or earnings, the defendant managed to buy an airline ticket for an April 19, 2013 flight from Chicago to Istanbul, which the defendant related to the OCE.

At least by April 15, the defendant’s family learned of the ticket. The defendant’s mother asked the defendant over the phone whether he had “return[ed] that damn thing; the ticket.”

The defendant expressed concern that his mother was “saying that over the telephone,” which led the defendant and his mother to begin speaking in code about the airline ticket, calling it a “movie ticket.”

The defendant’s mother demanded that the defendant “take it back.”

A few days later, the defendant’s mother talked to another family member about trying to convince the defendant to “return the ticket.”

Their attempts to stop the defendant proved futile, just like all of the previous attempts for the past six months.

On April 18, 2013, the defendant received from the OCE a bus ticket from Istanbul to Gaziantep, where the defendant was to meet with “brothers”from Jabhat al-Nusrah who would take the defendant to a training camp.

The next day, the defendant sent the OCE an email, describing what he would be wearing upon his arrival in Istanbul. The defendant noted that if failed to make it to Gaziantep, it would be because he was “arrested in the US or in Turkey.”

On the evening of April 19, 2013, the defendant went to O’Hare International Airport in an attempt to travel to Istanbul, intending to join Jabhat al-Nusrah.

At the airport, after proceeding through airport security and sitting down at his gate, the defendant was questioned by CBP officers, who asked the defendant about his travel.

The defendant told CBP officers that he was traveling to Turkey for three and a half days to “sightsee” and did not plan to visit any other countries.

When confronted about the bus ticket to Gaziantep, which the defendant had in his carry-on luggage, the defendant claimed he simply planned to tour that city as well.

Soon after the interview, the defendant was arrested.

B. Weight of the Evidence Against the Defendant

The evidence against the defendant is compelling.

As laid out in the criminal complaint affidavit, the FBI’s investigation was extensive and involved a variety of surveillance techniques.

Not only were the defendant’s plans captured through online and physical surveillance, all of his communications with the FBI undercover employee were recorded.

The web of lies the defendant spun to obtain a new passport and avoid scrutiny from CBP officers further reveals his guilty conscience, as does his final communication to the OCE – that if he did not arrive in Gaziantep, it would be because he was arrested.

The electronic surveillance, coupled with evidence that other witnesses (including family members) knew about the defendant’s plan, makes this a strong case.

C. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

The defendant is an eighteen year old United States citizen who resided (intermittently) with his parents in Aurora.

Although the defendant has no criminal history, his recent arrest hardly counts as his first encounter with law enforcement.

The defendant was a close friend of an individual named Adel Daoud, who on September 14, 2012, was arrested for attempting to detonate a bomb outside a bar in downtown Chicago. See United States v. Daoud, 12 CR 723.

As described in the affidavit, the defendant and Daoud shared an interest in violent jihad, a topic about which the two exchanged a number of emails, phone calls, and text messages.

In July 2012, Daoud was introduced to a purported operational terrorist, but who in fact was an FBI undercover agent. Daoud met with the undercover agent on several occasions, during the course of which he selected, researched, and surveilled a target for a terrorist attack to be carried out in the Chicago area.

In August 2012, Daoud shared his plans for a terrorist attack with the defendant and sought the defendant’s assistance.

The defendant recommended certain attack techniques, offered ideas about targeting, and researched those locations online to analyze their feasibility.

Ultimately, however, in mid-August 2012, the defendant decided against participating in the attack, in part because he believed the undercover agent was associated with law enforcement.

As Daoud explained to the undercover agent, the defendant sought instead to travel overseas to engage in violent jihad (and even pinpointed the date as April 2013).

Daoud opted to carry out the attack without the defendant, which led to his arrest on September 14, 2012,

Hours after Daoud’s arrest, the defendant was interviewed by FBI agents at his home in the presence of his parents. During the interview, the defendant initially claimed he barely knew Daoud and that he knew nothing
of Daoud’s plans.

After FBI agents stressed the importance of telling the truth, the defendant eventually acknowledged that he had discussed with Daoud the topic of bombing concerts and nightclubs in August 2012.

The defendant told FBI agents that during Ramadan he and Daoud searched for concerts and nightclubs, locations which the defendant understood to be targets of a bombing attack.

The defendant said he recommended as a target a particular nightclub in Naperville, Illinois.

The defendant told FBI agents that he eventually concluded that the person whom Daoud believed to be a terrorist was in fact a “spy,” meaning an FBI informant.

The defendant said that he had changed his mind about placing a bomb outside a nightclub after a religious leader told him it was wrong, though the defendant said he knew that Daoud was still planning to commit a bombing attack.

Finally, the defendant admitted that he contemplated traveling to Yemen to engage in jihad.

The defendant’s involvement in a plot to detonate a bomb in Chicago reveals much about his worldview.

But perhaps even more revealing is the fact that none of this deterred the defendant from attempting to travel overseas to join a terrorist group.

If ever the defendant experienced a wakeup call, surely it would be when his good friend was arrested on terrorism charges for a crime the defendant helped plan.

What is more, the September 14, 2012 interview made plain to the defendant (and his parents) that the FBI was aware of the defendant’s conduct and interest in violent jihad.

That the defendant continued to pursue this path in the face of the FBI’s scrutiny speaks volumes about his history and characteristics.

Neither the defendant’s parents nor the FBI was able to shake the defendant from the path that led to his arrest in this case.

D. Nature and Seriousness of the Defendant’s Danger to the Community

The defendant did not simply want to offer himself as a soldier to fight in the ranks of a terrorist militia, he wanted to die killing others, a desire he revealed not only to the purported terrorist recruiter but also to his parents.

The congressional presumption of dangerousness assigned to those who wish to engage in terrorist offenses certainly applies here.

The defendant presents a danger to the community (a term that includes the worldwide community, see United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2008)), if only because he withstood prolonged efforts by others to dissuade him from engaging in violent jihad.

The defendant’s parents (including the proposed third-party custody) knew about his desire to die a martyr in Syria and tried repeatedly to intervene, all to no avail.

Nor were other members of the defendant’s community able to convince him that traveling overseas for violent jihad was wrong. These facts only reinforce the presumption of dangerousness.

II. The Defendant Fails to Rebut the Presumption Favoring Detention

The defendant has failed to provide evidence to overcome section 3142(e)’s presumption of dangerousness and risk of flight. As the Seventh Circuit explained in Dominguez, the presumption in section 3142 represents a congressional finding that certain groups of offenders “are likely to continue to engage in criminal conduct undeterred either by the pendency of charges against them or by the imposition of monetary bond or other release conditions.” See Dominguez, 783 F.2d at 707.

A defendant so-charged must therefore produce some evidence of their individual circumstances or characteristics to show that “what might be true in general, is not true in their particular case.” Id. (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir. 1985).

At the detention hearing, the magistrate judge put undue weight on the recommendation of the pretrial services officer that the defendant be released. That recommendation fails to account for the presumption in this case and the evidence laid out in the affidavit (and at the detention hearing).

In other words, the defendant’s involvement in a plot to carry out a terrorist attack and his ability to obtain another passport, purchase a flight, and make it to O’Hare were not factored into the calculus of the pretrial services officer and, in turn, the magistrate judge.

Even a lack of criminal history should carry less force when dealing with a person caught attempting to join a foreign terrorist organization and carry out a martyrdom operation. Unlike other crimes, such as drug offenses, the charged offense typically is the sort that may only be committed once.

Given his track record, the assurance of the defendant’s father to call pretrial services if the defendant were to escape should ring hollow, particularly since he knew about his son’s interest in violent jihad at least since September 2012 and was unable (or unwilling) to stop his own son from attempting to fly overseas and die a martyr. This defendant harbors an unusually firm commitment, one that has led him to reject all others in his life and overcome all of the logistical and financial obstacles that stood between him and the terrorist organization he so desperately wanted to join.

Given the defendant’s unwavering commitment to join a designated terrorist organization and engage in violent jihad, and the failure of his family (and the third-party custodian) to stop him from doing so, the conditions imposed by the magistrate judge are insufficient to protect the community and ensure the defendant’s appearance at court.

“While Democrats say Teachers ‘Have Kept Their Part of the Deal?’“

is the title of an April 5, 2011, article by former Huntley School District 158 Board member Larry Snow.  (The quote was in the Chicago Tribune Marcy 31, 2011.  It is from Executive Director Dick Ingram of Teachers’ Retirement System.)

The article was published in “The Champion” with this teaser:

“82,981 of 132,502 Illinois Teachers Pay Nothing or Little into Their Pensions“

That’s 63% of all teachers in Illinois.

The State Journal-Register is reporting that State Rep. Kevin McCarthy (D-Orland Park) is promoting a bill where state and local governments would all pay six percent of payroll toward employee pensions.

In a revealing sentence in reporter Chris Wetterich’s article, he writes,

“What’s unclear is how much more employees themselves would have to pay.“

Because no one has done the research except, I believe, the Illinois Education Association and Snow, how much extra teachers would have to pay if their so-called contribution rate was raised from 9.4% to 13.77% is a really good question.

While not covering every school district in Illinois, Snow did research the teachers’ contracts for all of the large school districts (by law all are supposed to be on the internet) in order to find out how much teachers pay in order to get a “full 75 percent pension after working only 27 years.” He points out, “Most adults work for 27 years before they turn age 50.”

As way of background, Snow notes that teachers are not in the Social Security System and, therefore, are not forced to pay Social Security taxes.

“Ordinary workers get hit with a 6.2 percent deduction for Social Security,” Snow writes. “It’s a deduction they have to pay federal and state income taxes on.

“Democrats gave teachers a huge loophole of not paying income taxes on any of their pension deductions” he continues. “This enormous no-tax handout to teachers amounts to billions of dollars each year.”

Snow’s research leads him to this conclusion:

“Over 51,000 of the total 132,502 teachers in Illinois contribute nothing from their K-12 paychecks into their pensions. Illinois law says it is to be 9.4 percent.

“About an additional 32,000 teachers pay little into their pensions. It is 1.81 percent to be precise for these 31,956 teachers.“

How many teachers pay not a dime toward their retirement?

51,025 teachers in 186 school districts pay nothing for retirement benefits.

They “don’t pay a penny into the 9.4 percent called out by Illinois law.

“There are a total of 868 districts in Illinois.

“The pay-zero teachers listed are 39 percent of all teachers in Illinois,” Snow reveals.

No agency in state government seems to keep track of this information.

Not the Downstate Teachers Retirement Fund, which boldly and incorrectly claims,

“Active TRS members are required to contribute 9.4 percent of their creditable earnings each year…”

The State Board of Education doesn’t keep track either.

My guess is that only the Illinois Education Association has a matrix showing what school districts have given what benefits in contract negotiations.

Snow discovered this about Lockport:

“…on page 14 of the Lockport Township HS 205 teachers contract it reads:

1. The Board will pay the current level of retirement contribution to the Teachers Retirement System of Illinois.”
2. It is expressly understood that figures appearing on this salary schedule include a sum equal to the current level of TRS contribution of the base salary of each Teacher which is, in fact, payable to the Teachers’ Retirement System on the Teacher’s behalf.”

“The ISBE report shows this board paying nothing. A Democrat bureaucracy doesn’t check the teachers contracts to see if what is reported, matches what’s in writing.”

And, if legislation is passed requiring 4.37 percentage points more, how long do you think it will take Lockport taxpayers to pick up the difference?

Given that local teachers’ unions pretty much control school boards wherever they are elected (read everywhere but Chicago), my guess is will be on the top of the collective bargaining list.

Do you wonder if Rep. McCarthy knows that?

Is his proposal just a setting up local taxpayers for an even bigger fall?

Five years from now will 39% of teachers still be paying nothing for their pensions?

Even better for teachers is that this pension payment ups their pension payments.

Take a look at the chart below.  Chances are your school district is on it.

Chart of Pension Contributions by 82,981 District Teachers of 132,502 Total Illinois K-12 Teachers

Name of District	No. of Teachers	Percent of Pension Contributed by Teachers
Thornton Twp 205	428	Zero
Proviso 209	281	Zero
Waukegan 60	1,098	Zero
Morton 201	455	Zero
Kankakee 111	348	Zero
Joliet 204	340	Zero
Round Lake 116	387	Zero
Rockford	1,843	Zero
Decatur 61	454	Zero
Crete Monee	340	Zero
Danville 118	382	Zero
Valley View 365	1,068	Zero
Aurora West 129	706	Zero
East Peoria 309	69	Zero
Galesburg	281	Zero
Bremen 228	313	Zero
Freeport	317	Zero
Leyden 212	219	Zero
Elgin U-46	2,332	Zero
Rock Island	388	Zero
Mattoon	225	Zero
Collinsville	394	Zero
Massac 1	143	Zero
Sterling	219	Zero
Belvidere	531	Zero
Quincy	436	Zero
Dixon	179	Zero
West Chicago	248	Zero
Cook County 130	289	Zero
Cicero 99	738	Zero
Joliet 86	617	Zero
Harvey 152	163	Zero
Crystal Lake 155	412	Zero
Crystal Lake 47	564	Zero
Wheeling 21	489	Zero
Champaign 4	717	Zero
United CUSD 304	68	Zero
Riverdale 100	76	Zero
Reed Custer 255	114	Zero
Wilmington 209U	84	Zero
United Township 30	90	Zero
Summit Hill 161	213	Zero
Plainfield	1,695	Zero
Schiller Park 81	98	Zero
Dolton 149	176	Zero
Township 211 Palatine	799	Zero
Ball Chatham 5	248	Zero
Taylorville 3	152	Zero
Williamsville 15	81	Zero
Harrisburg 3	130	Zero
Belleville 201	281	Zero
Dupo 196	76	Zero
O’Fallon 203	145	Zero
O’Fallon 90	207	Zero
Rochester 3A	142	Zero
Pekin 108	248	Zero
Morton 709	175	Zero
New Lenox 122	287	Zero
Frankfort 157	158	Zero
Marion 2	219	Zero
Carterville 5	110	Zero
Kinnikinnick 131	122	Zero
Tolono 7	116	Zero
Mahomet-Seymour 3	161	Zero
Champaign 4	717	Zero
Urbana	346	Zero
Charleston 1	180	Zero
Park Ridge 64	319	Zero
Evanston 202	222	Zero
Maine HSD 207	508	Zero
Arlington Heights 214	753	Zero
Niles 219	350	Zero
Berkeley 87	165	Zero
Berwyn South	263	Zero
Lyons 204	239	Zero
Lemont 113	144	Zero
Palatine 15	713	Zero
Schaumburg 54	1,003	Zero
Oak Lawn 123	203	Zero
Oak Lawn 229	114	Zero
CHSD 230 Orland Park	519	Zero
Argo 217	111	Zero
Homewood 233	174	Zero
Genoa 424	137	Zero
Sycamore 427	231	Zero
Dekalb 428	362	Zero
Lombard 44	216	Zero
Downers Grove 58	277	Zero
Hinsdale 86	296	Zero
Elmhurst 205	538	Zero
Naperville 203	1,063	Zero
Effingham 40	176	Zero
Canton Union 66	175	Zero
Morris 54	61	Zero
Morris 101	50	Zero
Coal City 1	138	Zero
Jersey 100	164	Zero
Central CUSD 301	224	Zero
Kaneland 302	275	Zero
St. Charles 303	880	Zero
Cahokia	298	0.4
Chicago Public Schools	23,219	2
Peoria 150	988	0.4
Springfield	1,105	0.4
Moline 40	461	0.4
Harvard	149	0.87
Dolton 148	236	1.4
Belleville 118	228	0.4
Pekin 303	125	0.4
Hononegah 207	118	0.4
Arlington Heights 59	444	3
Leyden 212	219	0.4
Summit 104	103	0.4
Palos 118	130	0.4
CHSD 219 Orland Park	519	0.4
Bensenville 2	145	1.4
DuPage 88	266	0.4
CHSD 94	122	0.9
CUSD 300	1,189	4.4
Hawthorn 73	253	1.4
Lake Forest 115	132	0.4
Wauconda 118	273	0.4
Johnsburg 12	158	0.4
Cary 26	192	4.9
Woodstock 200	385	1.4
Keeneyville 20	107	0.4
Winnebago 323	117	0.4
LaSalle-Peru Twp. 120	88	0.7
Prairie-Hills 144	187	0.4
Geneva 304	367	Zero
Herscher 2	126	Zero
Manteno 5	160	Zero
Bourbonnais 53	160	Zero
Bradley 61	103	Zero
Bradley Bourbonnais 307	114	Zero
Momence 1	88	Zero
Yorkville 115	329	Zero
Plano 88	154	Zero
Oswego 308	827	Zero
Streator 44	132	Zero
Ottawa 141	140	Zero
Ottawa 140	102	Zero
Glenview 34	343	Zero
Zion 6	177	Zero
Grayslake 46	266	Zero
Elmwood Park 401	181	Zero
Libertyville 70	159	Zero
North Shore 112	374	Zero
HSD 113 Highland Park	249	Zero
Grant 124	91	Zero
Zion-Benton 126	156	Zero
Evanston 65	547	Zero
Grayslake 127	187	Zero
Meridian 15	64	Zero
Mt. Zion 3	133	Zero
Edwardsville 7	480	Zero
Alton 11	467	Zero
Macomb 185	130	Zero
McHenry 15	282	Zero
McHenry 156	158	Zero
Nippersink 2	92	Zero
Columbia 4	111	Zero
Waterloo 5	166	Zero
Hillsboro 3	114	Zero
Meridian 223	113	Zero
Illinois Valley Central 321	139	Zero
Carbondale 165	76	Zero
Carbondale 95	105	Zero
Riverton 14	85	Zero
Auburn 10	90	Zero
Pawnee 11	47	Zero
Panhandle 2	35	Zero
Sullivan 300	75	Zero
Centralia 135	93	Zero
Litchfield 12	83	Zero
Harlem 122	505	Zero
Granite City 9	617	Zero
Princeton 115	86	Zero
Princeton 500	43	Zero
Bond County 2	120	Zero
Duquoin CUSD 300	101	Zero
Rocton 140	102	Zero
Rochelle Twp. HSD 212	71	Zero
Rochelle CCSD 231	131	Zero
Byron 226	127	Zero
Oregon 220	104	Zero
Farmington Central 265	85	Zero
Porta 202	75	Zero
River Bend 2	71	Zero
Red Bud 132	73	Zero
Sparta 140	105	Zero
Southwestern 9	107	Zero
Staunton 6	87	Zero
Gillespie 7	81	Zero
Hamilton County 10	83	Zero
Midwest Central 191	85	Zero
Tuscola 301	86	Zero
West Carroll 314	99	Zero
Oakwood 76	64	Zero
Hoopeston 11	94	Zero
Westville 2	80	Zero
Beardstown 15	98	Zero
El Paso-Gridley 11	99	Zero
Murphysboro 186	137	Zero
Monticello 25	111	Zero
Paris-Union 95	74	Zero
Mt. Vernon Twp. 210	80	Zero
Mt. Vernon 80	109	Zero
Jasper County 1	101	Zero
Steger 194	128	Zero
Calumet City 155	77	Zero
North Boone 200	116	Zero
CCSD 93 Carol Stream	294	Zero
East Maine SD 63	254	Zero
Lockport Township HS 205	205	Zero
Above Teachers Total	82,981

 

Read between the lines of this press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and let me know if you think indictments are forthcoming for those involved with this Kane County special tax district:

SMALL WEST SUBURBAN WATER DISTRICT PLACED IN HANDS OF

COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER AFTER U.S. SUES OVER LOAN DEFAULT

CHICAGO — A federal judge today appointed a receiver to take charge of operating a small west suburban water district after the United States filed a civil lawsuit alleging that the district is missing thousands of dollars in cash receipts and is “hopelessly in default” of a federal loan.

The Moecherville Water District, N.F.P., which supplies water to approximately 370 customers just east of Aurora in Kane County, was placed in receivership after the government lawsuit was filed under seal yesterday.  The suit was unsealed today after the receivership order was served on the district, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture loaned the not-for-profit district $2.778 million in July 2005 for the construction of a water utility system through a USDA farm lending program designed to help farmers and rural residents finance soil conservation, development and water control projects.

The district has not made a single payment on the loan since the first monthly payment was due in August 2007, and the district now owes the USDA more than $3.2 million in principal and  interest, according to the foreclosure complaint filed in U.S. District Court.

U.S. District Judge William Hibbler appointed the Illinois Rural Water Association as receiver to operate the water supply system until its property can be sold through foreclosure.  In a companion court filing asking for the receiver to be appointed, the government alleged that it has reason to believe that the water district has misappropriated cash payments it received from customers.  Based on a review of financial records, on several occasions, the district has deposited less funds into its operating account than it received from its customers, the document states.

According to the court documents, the United States is entitled to relief under the terms of two promissory notes, a real estate mortgage and a loan resolution security agreement.

In order to secure repayment of the loan, the Moecherville district granted the USDA a mortgage covering the property that contains the income-producing water utility system.

The mortgaged property consists of four parcels, which together contain well houses, an office and water tower, and a garage and storage facility, located at

• 527 S. Kendall,
• 539 S. Farnsworth,
• 1228 Ziegler, and
• 1206 Ziegler,

all with Aurora mailing addresses.

After failing to make timely payments, in September 2009, the Moecherville district filed a bankruptcy petition, which was later voluntarily dismissed.

“There is no reason to believe that Moecherville will make any payments on the debt in the future,” the court documents state.

As of Aug. 11, 2010, the  debt had grown to $3,241,707.71, accruing interest at the rate of $313.95 per day.

While the mortgaged property and equipment have some value, according to the documents, the real value in the water system is based on the revenue stream from its operations, which can only be realized by continuing to supply water.

Proper management of the cash receipts is necessary to maximize the system’s value to prospective purchasers, the government claimed in its request for receivership.

According to the district’s 2009 financial reports, revenue was obtained from customers in the form of cash, checks and money orders, and all such receipts should have been deposited into Moecherville’s operating account.

However, a review of several reporting periods showed that the district “has failed to consistently deposit the cash receipts that it receives,” which accumulate to thousands of dollars.

The government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kurt Lindland and Joseph A. Stewart.

In civil cases, the government has the burden of proving the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Tuesday, I posted an article entitled,

Clue that State’s Financial Situation May Not Be as Bad as Some Would Lead You to Believe

While writing the article, which was based on a Chicago Sun-Times article about Geneva’s getting a gazebo and a mural to commemorate the first national cross-country road–the Lincoln Highway–I asked the Illinois Department of Transportation what the other 17 towns that would get similar amenities.

I have received the answer in an email from Marisa Kollias, which follows:

“The communities slated to receive an Interpretive Gazebo are:

• Aurora
• Batavia
• Creston
• DeKalb
• Dixon
• Frankfort
• Fulton
• Geneva
• Malta
• New Lenox
• North Aurora
• Oregon
• Park Forest
• Plainfield
• Rochelle
• Sterling

“The bulk of the funding is from the federal scenic byway program and the match is provided by the local community.”

More information came from IDOT Communications Manager Paris Ervin:

“The National Scenic Byway Program (NSBP) is a federal program that is administered by each state, along with their Division Federal Highway Administration office. For more information, check out the NSBP website at www.bywaysonline.org.

“In a nutshell, the local grass-roots organizations that apply for and successfully attain National Scenic Byway status are eligible to apply each year for federal funds from the National Scenic Byways Program.

“It is an 80/20 reimbursement program so the federal funding is awarded at 80% and the 20% is provided by local match. Grantees must spend the funds on the project and then apply for reimbursement once performance is proven.

“There are no state funds involved in these projects with the exception of possible Marketing Partnership or Tourism Attraction Development Program grant funds that are administered by the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Tourism.

“Depending on the type of project, a grantee could be eligible to apply for these funds to use as matching dollars for the federal funds.

“The 2009 Scenic Byway projects have not been announced. The FY 2008 National Scenic Byway Program funds awarded to Illinois totaled $1,280,528. The local match amount is $320,132 for a total project amount of $1,600,660.”

So, it appears that my pressumption that state money was being spent on gazebos may be incorrect. At least it seems that the money isn’t road money from IDOT.

It’s the Federal government that has money to spend.