McHenry County Blog

McHenry County Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz looked a bit like a cat that had swallowed the canary after the Monday hearing on Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell’s motion for sanctions.

Judge Thomas Meyer suggested Caldwell might want to go talk to his client and told Horwitz he didn’t have to file a brief.

You can read Monday’s article here.

Now I learn that his reticence was well-placed.

The County Board is backing off on its attempts to get paid for Special Prosecutor Caldwell and the time Assistant State’s Attorneys spent on the case.

Filing of the motion was authorized by County Board Chairman Ken Koehler. I have found no other County Board member who was consulted prior to the decision. Indeed several expressed outright surprise at not being consulted.

Seipler’s effort to get a Special Prosecutor named to investigate whether Sheriff Keith Nygren used taxpayer money to advance his re-election effort was filed shortly before Seipler lost the GOP primary election to Nygren.

Although McHenry County Board Chairman Ken Koehler seems to have made the decision on his own to seek sanctions against Zane Seipler and his attorney Blake Horwitz for seeking a Special Prosecutor to probe whether Sheriff Keith Nygren used tax dollars to promote his campaign, others on the Board might have some input as to whether to continue the case.

There was precious little time spent in Judge Thomas Meyer’s courtroom Monday.

Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell appeared on behalf of the County.

“My request is that you deny the motion,” Horwitz said. (The motion can be read here.)

“I’m going to pass. We’ll come back to it,” was the only comment I heard from Judge Meyer the first time around.

Horwitz and Caldwell went outside.

Maybe a half an hour later the two attorney’s against approached the bench with what appeared to be an agreed motion.

Explaining it, Caldwell said, “[It was Judge Meyer's] suggestion that I’m going to take it to the County.”

The First Electric Newspaper’s Pete Gonigam, the one who discovered that Koehler authorized the sanctions motion, asked if Caldwell were going to talk to Koehler.

“I’m going to talk to a bunch of people,” he replied.

Horwitz summarized what he told the Judge:

“The motion does not have merit. I’d like the court to dismiss it on its face.”

He added that Judge Meyer said, “You don’t need to file a response. We’ll be back here in two weeks.

He was referring to July 10th.

In the courtroom was Sheriff’s Deputy Zane Seipler, who ran against Nygren for the GOP nomination for Sheriff two years ago. The suit seeking a special prosecutor was filed shortly before the February primary election.

Judge Meyer refused to approve a Special Prosecutor. (See “Sheriff Keith Nygren Off the Special Prosecutor Hook, State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi Given Permission to Fish.”

Monday was one of his days off from working the night shift patrol.

You’ve heard of Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell’s motion seeking to have Zane Seipler and his attorney Blake Horwitz pay for the cost of defending McHenry County in Zane Seipler’s case seeking a Special Prosecutor to investigate Sheriff Keith Nygren, right?

I thought you might be interested in reading the entire motion, so I have reproduced it below:

STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
COUNTY OF McHENRY )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 22nd JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
ex rel. ZANE SEIPLER, Petitioner,

vs.

COUNTY OF McHENRY, Intervenor.

No. 10 MR 11

COUNTY OF MCHENRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

The COUNTY OF McHENRY, by Caldwell, Berner & Caldwell, LLP, (CBC) its attorneys, Petitions the Court for the entry of sanctions against both the Petitioner Zane Seipler and his attorney, Blake Horowitz, pursuant to Supreme County Rule 137, and in support of said Motion for Sanctions alleges as follows:

1. Prior to the appearance of CBC, the County was represented by the McHenry County State’s Attorney and the County is requesting that a sanction be entered for the time expended by the County’s State’s Attorneys in responding to the five Petitions that have been filed.

2. Supreme Court Rule 137 provides, in part, as follows:
“. . . The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. . .”

3. Seipler began this request for the appointment of a special prosecutor on January 13, 2010 based upon a six-paragraph Petition and an attached Affidavit of Zane Seipler.

4. The allegations in the original Petition were that the Sheriff had performed political activity while on duty and directed his deputies to perform political activities while on duty.

5. On December 27, 2010, Seipler filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Supplement the Third Amended Petition to appoint a special prosecutor.

6. That Motion alleged that the record should be supplemented based upon the testimony of Deputy Scott Milliman alleging that Sheriff Nygren engaged in the solicitation of murder, trafficked illegal aliens from Mexico, covered up racial profiling, and participated in a payoff scheme with members of the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s office.

7. Attached hereto [see above] and made a part hereof as Exhibit 1 is copy of correspondence between Angela L. Byers, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI, on behalf of Robert D. Grant, the Agent in Charge, to Undersheriff Andrew Zinke indicating that the information provided by Deputy Milliman did not have “prosecutive merit.”

8. The Exhibits of the original Petition indicated that Seipler was referred to the Attorney General’s office or the State Board of Election by Assistant State’s Attorney Thomas Carroll on November 3, 2009. That Petition also contains a copy of a letter from Diane L. Salton, Executive Inspector General of the Office of the Attorney General, indicating that their allegations did not fit within the scope of their jurisdiction, and that she was referring it to the Public Integrity Division.

9. Attached to the original Petition was the October 1, 2009 correspondence to Zane Seipler from the State Board of Elections, Daniel White, Executive Director, indicating that although the allegations were made to them, they were referring it to their General Counsel Steve Sandvoss, for review.

10. Seipler’s multiple Petitions, including the Fifth Amended Petition, made the following allegations. The bracketed number in front of each of the following paragraphs reflects the number in the Petition. Below it is the County’s corresponding answer.

[3.] In approximately 2004, Keith Nygren created a seven star LOGO.

County’s Answer: The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 3; for further answer, the County states that the seven star logo has been used by multiple agencies across the country and is not a creation of Sheriff Nygren.

[4.] There is an official logo of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department – a five point star – which has been used by the Sheriff’s Department for over 20 years.

County’s Answer:
The County admits that the Sheriff’s office has used a five point star, but denies that it is the official logo; the County admits that the Sheriff’s Department has used that logo for many years but has insufficient information to form a conclusion as to the exact period of time that it has been used and therefore demands strict proof thereof.

[5.] Mr. Nygren created the LOGO on a computer.

County’s Answer:
The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 5.

[9]. In 2004, Mr. Nygren intentionally created the LOGO to be used for his political campaign.

County’s Answer:
The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 9.

[10.] Mr. Nygren intended to create the LOGO to forward his political campaign, meaning, to assist him in winning the election for McHenry County Sheriff.

County’s Answer:
The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 10

[23.] The LOGO was placed on the Interior Wall pursuant to the order of Sheriff Nygren.

County’s Answer:
The County admits the logo is on the Interior Wall, but denies the balance of the allegations.

[26.] Mr. Nygren desired to have the LOGO affixed to the Interior Wall and Vehicles, so as to support his political campaign. It was the intention and desire of Mr. Nygren to cause the LOGO to be intermingled with the official LOGO of the Sheriff’s Department, so as to:
a. cause McHenry County budget to pay for campaign paraphernalia. . . .

County’s Answer:
The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 26 and subparagraph(s) “a”.

[27.] Keith Nygren has requested that the LOGO be placed on McHenry County Official stationary.

County’s Answer:
The County admits the allegation contained in paragraph 27.

[28.] The LOGO has been placed on official McHenry County stationary.

County’s Answer:
The County admits the allegation contained in paragraph 28.

[32.] The Sheriff intentionally caused a LOGO that he created exclusively for his political campaign to be associated with and affixed to official property, paid for by the taxpayers, therefore allowing his own campaign to be promoted using McHenry County tax dollars.

County’s Answer:
The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 32.

11. The County has been informed and therefore believes that there has never been an “official” star of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department.

12. The County has been informed and therefore believes that on occasions prior to the election of Sheriff Nygren the Sheriff’s office has used seven-point stars.

13. That the San Jose Police Department has been using a seven-point star since the late 1800s and that they have been exclusively using the seven-point star from the 1900s to 1976, as indicated in the attached Exhibit 2.

14. That the County is informed and therefore believes that the seven-point star, and various versions thereof, have been used by multiple police departments for over 100 years prior to the allegations of the Fifth Amended Petition.

15. The signatures of the Petitioner Zane Seipler and Attorney Blake Horowitz on the Petition constitutes a certificate that to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, that the allegations about the five-point star and seven-point star are well-grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or good faith argument for the extension, modification and reversal of existing law; that the allegations are not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

16. The County believes that the Fifth Amended Petition was done solely for the purpose of harassing the Sheriff and the County. The following facts were well known prior to proceeding with the Fifth Amended Petition:
(a) The seven-point star has been a part of the public domain for over 100 years.
(b) That the five-point star was never an “official LOGO of the County.”
(c) That the Sheriff is vested with the absolute right to determine how his office is demonstrated to the County.
(d) That the argument concerning the five-point and seven-point star is solely a political argument interposed for the purpose of harassing the Sheriff.
(e) That the allegation that this is theft was without merit.
(f) That in the process of pursuing the appointment of a special prosecutor, Zane Seipler and his attorney have been advised that Milliman’s allegations had no prosecutive merit, and that they should submit their claims to offices other than the State’s Attorney.
(g) Plaintiff’s allegations have been reviewed by multiple governmental agencies and agents. They include the F.B.I., the Attorney General’s Office, the State Board of Elections, First Assistant State’s Attorney Thomas Carroll and State’s Attorney Donald Leist. All of those agencies have indicated that there is no prosecutorial merit to their allegations.

WHEREFORE, the COUNTY OF McHENRY prays that an Order be entered holding that the Petitioner SANE SEIPLER and his attorney, BLAKE HOROWITZ, have violated Supreme Court Rule 137 and that as sanctions for violating that Rule, that the County have and recover its attorney’s fees and costs.

Caldwell, Berner & Caldwell, LLP,
Attorneys for the County of McHenry, Intervenor,

By:
William I. Caldwell

William I. Caldwell Att Reg No: 0369381
Caldwell, Berner & Caldwell, LLP
100½ Cass Street, Woodstock IL 60098
Bus: 815-338-3300, Fax: 815-338-0015

In a fight to determine whether Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s case will be dismissed because of the release of secret court documents by his wife on a blog, Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz and Sheriff Keith Nygren’s Attorney James Sotos faced off Wednesday.

Seipler was the only one to take the stand. He did so for about three hours.

It seemed to me that both sides were trying to tie up loose ends.

“If confidential information has been made public, I knew it wasn’t me,” Seipler again testified. “They are the ones who had the history of releasing confidential information.”

Sotos seemed to be laying groundwork for a “gotcha” moment, perhaps when Seipler’s wife Rose finally (after sitting outside missing work for three days) takes the stand. He did his best to create a timeline of when Seipler finally knew that the blog came from his computer.

He wanted to know how long the argument lasted after Seipler found out about his wife’s posting.

“All night. From 8 to 1 in the night.”

Later, Seipler said, “The argument is going on to this day.”

Horwitz took pains to show that his client knew nothing of the posting of Sheriff’s Department disciplinary documents that ended up on a blog that his wife wrote.

“I told her not to even comment on the internet,” he said.

But, he added, “She does what she does. She told me she wouldn’t. That’s why I believed she wouldn’t.”

Much was made of Seipler’s not having stepped forward to tell Magistrate Michael Mahoney of the lapse.

And much was made of a Woodstock Police Department domestic abuse report, secret according to state statute, that was posted all over the McHenry County Courthouse just before the 2010 primary election for Sheriff in which Seipler faced off against Nygren.

The report appeared after the Sotos law firm obtained it as part of defending Nygren in the wrongful termination case Seipler filed. Seipler testified that the Woodstock Police Chief said that the Sotos firm was the only entity that obtained the report.

The making public of the secret deposition of former Deputy Scott Milliman, fired by Nygren as was Seipler, took a lot of time.

And the list of alleged illegal activities of Sheriff Nygren was again presented to Judge Frederick Kapala.

This is the deposition that ended up being partially reported in the Northwest Herald, as was pointed out by Seipler, and given to one of the people mentioned in the deposition as having engaged in illegal acts. (For the second court hearing, Milliman was sitting outside awaiting his turn to be a witness.)

Judge Kapala can hardly have missed the point that Horwitz seemed trying to make, that is, the Sheriff’s disciplinary reports were far from the only documents that had been improperly released.

Seipler’s respect for the Sotos law firm was evident in his reply as to why he thought his wife would need an attorney after he found out that she had posted the documents:

Seipler: “Because she was going to have to answer to you…for posting the documents.”

Sotos: “What kind of a lawyer?”

Seipler: “Someone who could stand up to Jim Sotos and Associates. I wasn’t going to let her go in there without protection…

“The Sotos law firm will do whatever it has to to protect the Sheriff’s Department.”

At that point Seipler made reference to the deposition leaked to the Northwest Herald and the domestic violence police report:

“I believed that everybody was subject to the protective order.”

He later compared the internal disciplinary reports that his wife made public to the Scott Milliman allegations made public by Nygren’s Sheriff’s Office:

“The documents reflected cops behaving badly versus cops who could spend the rest of their life in jail.”

Asked about Milliman’s reliability, Seipler told of his being an officer with one of the highest records of arrest.

“He was a good cop. All the supervisors said that.”

As to his credibility, Seipler reported that Milliman had told him Nygren “thought of him as a son.”

Concerning the alleged criminal activity mentioned in his deposition, Seipler said,

“He was there when it was happening. He said he went to the FBI. He could get in big trouble.”

Horwitz asked if the information revealed was “potentially incriminating.”

“Right. Yes. The only ones who do that are ones who are coming clean.”

Horwitz brought up Dave Bachmann’s having revealed that Sheriff Nygren had two Homestead Exemptions and how after than Sheriff Nygren had called Milliman and said he wanted…

At which point Judge Kapala interrupted saying in a questioning voice, “Dave Bachmann is the one that Sheriff Nygren told Scott Milliman to kill.”

Getting an affirmative nod or facial expression, the Judge continued, “That’s all I need to know about that.”

This was one of several times the Judge indicated that he thought that more questions were being asked than was necessary to make the point being made.

At one point, he said, “This hearing’s going to take years if we’re going to go into that.”

Why did Seipler think his wife needed an attorney after learning of her posting of the disciplinary reports?

“It (the publishing of the protected documents) did not feel right. [It felt like] she was doing something wrong. I was concerned there was some kind of a breach of the court order.

“I was not comfortable with her just running out and saying, ‘I did it.’”

Rose Seipler did not hire an attorney immediately. Testimony was elicited that indicated financial problems were part, if not most, of the reason.

“We’re always late with our mortgage.”

By this time Seipler had won his arbitration case to go back to work at the Sheriff’s Department, but Nygren kept appealing until turned down by the Illinois Supreme Court, depriving the family of two incomes.

The relationship between Sheriff Nygren and Seipler was explored.

“Did you feel like the Sheriff was out to get you?” Horwitz asked.

“Yes,” was the terse answer.

Seipler again recounted Nygren’s having told him to “get good insurance” in the lobby of the Northwest Herald building before the joint editorial board appearance.

Discussing Milliman’s fall 2010 deposition in Seipler’s case, Horwitz asked, “What effect did that have [on you]?”

“What he said in the deposition scared me. We’re scared of the same people, including Sheriff Nygren.”

The phrase “squash you like a grape” came up.

“I don’t want to be squeezed like a grape.

“This is a very serious thing going on here.”

Seipler testified that he was scared after Scott Milliman’s brother “was shot dead.”

Horwitz sought the reason Seipler thought it significant that Scott Milliman’s brother was killed in unincorporated McHenry County.

“It was convenient,” Seipler said. “The agency that was to be tasked with the murder of Scott Milliman’s brother was the Sheriff’s Department.

He added that the woman in the house “was a CI [confidential informant] or her sister was a CI. I have no verification of either except what I’ve been told by other cops.

“She was there when he bled out,” Seipler said. [The shooting was right down the street from the Woodstock Hospital.]

Seipler also revealed that he took his concerns about the Sheriff’s Department racially profiling those to whom tickets were issued to the

• State Police
• FBI
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
• Department of Human Rights

It was brought up that the Sotos law firm was deeply involved in a Sheriff’s Department study of racial profiling.

“Basically, the Department investigated itself,” Horwitz asserted.

Agreeing, Seipler pointed out that the study came after the Chicago Tribune ran a 2010 front page story on racial profiling in the Sheriff’s Department.

In the courtroom was the Sheriff Department’s new Affirmative Action Officer, Don Leist.

Associate Judge Thomas Meyer ruled Wednesday that no Special Prosecutor was needed to probe alleged criminal activity of McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren.

He also ruled that the fears of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi that he might lose his law license because of a conflict of interest should he investigate and/or prosecute the Sheriff were unfounded.

Judge Meyer read his decision because “I’ve amended it so much in the last 24 hours.”

He put much emphasis on the lack of direction from the Illinois General Assembly, stating, “The Court is limited to the statutes,” which he ruled did not authorize the appointment of a Special Prosecutor in the circumstances before him.

Judge Meyer concluded that Bianchi’s decision not to investigate was within in his prosecutorial discretion, that he “decided to chose this course.”

It was the State’s Attorney’s “decision not to investigate..his discretion.”

Using as an example the State’s Attorney’s current prosecution of Sheriff’s Deputy Greg Pyle’s case, although not by name, just by the charge of “criminal predatory sexual assault of a child,” the Court pointed out that there was no “per se conflict,” as argued by Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz.

“The State’s Attorney has not declined to be involved in the prosecution,” Judge Meyer stated.

The 27-month old case was brought by then-former Sheriff’s Deputy Zane Seipler in January, 2010, while he was running against Nygren for the Republican nomination for Sheriff.

After the decision, Bianchi’s Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell said,

“The County is very happy that we do not have another Special Prosecutor, especially as it relates to a 5-point or a 7-point star.”

Caldwell also said, “It’s teed up for the Appellate Court,” if Seipler decides to appeal.

Later, when Horwitz said he didn’t know if the case would be appealed, Caldwell interjected, “I love you, Blake.”

An appeal would mean more legal fees for Caldwell, of course.

After conferring with two Assistant State’s Attorneys in private, Horwitz stated,

“The Judge said very clearly Lou Bianchi’s office can prosecute criminal [conduct. There's] no conflict.

“The only question is whether the State’s Attorney [will do so].”

Referring to the evidence that could be investigated, Horwitz said, “There’s much more [than using taxpayer dollars to advance the Sheriff's political campaign].

“He doesn’t need a private citizen to tell him what to do.

“The State’s Attorney can prosecute [Sheriff Nygren].

Bianchi was represented most recently by Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell. Previously Donald Leist, who has since moved over to the Sheriff’s Department as Affirmative Action Officer, represented the State’s Attorney, for whom he worked.

Appearing before the court session began was Bianchi Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan. When I asked if he was there to be “an expert witness,” he replied that he was not, that he just happened to be in the courthouse on other business.

In Zane Seipler’s Federal wrongful termination suit, Sheriff Keith Nygren’s attorney, James Sotos, is attempting to gain dismissal because of the posting of confidential case documents from Zane’s home computer.

His reasoning is that Seipler deliberately released documents (see them here) that were labeled “Confidential.”

The smoking gun from Sotos’s viewpoint was information subpoenaed from Google that the computer from which Zane Seipler’s self-identified blog, McHenry County Sheriff’s Department Exposed, was the same one used for the Shadow Deputy blog and one with almost the same title as Zane’s, The Real McHenry County Sheriff’s Office Exposed.

Seipler vehemently denied that he had posted to confidential documents.

Stated several times in several different ways, the message was the same:

“All I know is that I didn’t give anything out…I did not give out the documents to either web site.”

The story that emerged Tuesday in Rockford was that, unbeknownst to Seipler, his wife Rose, put up the other two blogs shortly after Kurt Milliman, former Deputy Sheriff Scott Milliman’s twin brother was shot to death.

Zane’s attorney asked his reaction to Kurt Milliman’s murder.

“I was afraid for a lot of people’s lives, mine included.”

Although Zane had told his wife not to involved herself in the case, she apparently did so in an attempt to protect her family.

Zane did not discover his wife’s involvement until after a second week of August, 2011, phone discussion with his attorney Blake Horwitz, which was overheard by Rose.

“It was heated and about this stuff and he’s asking me how this is possible and I’m saying I don’t know,” Zane testified.

“She approached me about it after hearing me and my lawyer arguing over the phone about how it got on the internet,” Zane testified.

“She was crying. She told me she had done it.”

“Why the hell did you do that?” Zane reported asking his wife.

“That the case could be dismissed?” Sotos asked.

“That’s something she could understand,” Zane replied.

He later explained that Rose was “extremely remorseful.”

Zane pointed out that he had previously “told her several times over the years not to comment on the newspaper or the blogs about the case,” but she did so anyway.

“That was the first time you talked to anyone but your lawyer?” Sotos asked.

“Yeah,” Zane replied.

He explained why he thought his wife has put up the secret information on the internet.

“She wanted to show what these people were all about…We’ve spent years being concerned about somebody’s getting killed…when you’ve heard that Sheriff Nygren said, ‘Kill Dave Bachmann,’ pushing Judge [Conrad] Floeter under the train.”

Rose was apparently following her husband’s example.

His wife told him, “You told me the only reason we’re safe is that you’re out there saying stuff,” referring to at least his blog, which he took down after the June sanctions motion was filed by Sotos.

“If I am known by people and they know there’s a fight going on, everyone will know where to look [if something happens to me or my family],” Zane explained.

Later Zane elaborated on his strategy:

“I can’t just disappear without [people knowing where to look].  It’s not the best protection in the world, but it’s all we’ve got.”

Sotos wanted to know when he had told Rose that.

“A long time ago.”

Coming back again, Sotos got this reply from Zane:

“You’ve got to remember she was crying. We were fighting.

“She didn’t want me to have any part of it. She didn’t want me to be involved.”

During Zane’s Republican 2010 primary campaign for Sheriff against Nygren [disclosure--I supported Zane in my precinct],

“He told me when I went to the Northwest Herald in the lobby [before the interview], ‘Go get good life insurance.’”

Sotos pressed on why Zane had not investigated the appearance of the secret documents after they appeared on the internet.

“Just because you guys write it (in the sanctions motion) doesn’t make it legit,” Zane replied.

As Sotos tried to get Zane to explain why he didn’t probe who had had posted the confidential personnel documents on the internet, Zane pretty much repeated his former answer,

“In all honestly I did not know it did not come from you guys. I knew it wasn’t me.”

Sotos pressed further about Zane’s two-month delay in trying to find out who had posted the confidential documents.

“I also thought it was a Greg Pyle thing with his super computer [talents].”

Whether Zane had told his attorney Blake Horwitz took up a lot of time.

“I had not told him” was but one way the question was answered by Zane.  And, “I never specifically told him that Rose did it.”

“I told my lawyer, ‘I think I need to get my wife an attorney.’

“My attorney specifically told me not to tell [him] anymore.”

Asked by his attorney, “Why didn’t you tell me?” Zane replied, “Because I do understand there’s a privilege (between wife and husband) and, secondly, I was scared for her.”

Zane related having been “accused of felonies before by the Sheriff’s Department and this attorney [referring to Sotos].  I figured this would be a criminal issue.”

And that “Rose’s interests were not a concern of yours.  As an officer of the court you were going to have to do your job.”

Horwitz could and did speak for himself.

He knew that there were only three adults regularly in the home, Zane, Rose and babysitter Eileen Marhoefer.

“Did you think I understood, my having a brain, I couldn’t figure it out?” Horwitz asserted in a rhetorical question.

There were extensive discussions about the extent of attorney-client privilege during the 9:30 to 5:15 hearing with the Judge Frederick Kapala explaining that the privilege was the client’s and could be waive in part or in whole.

Sotos used comments on Zane’s official blog to suggest that Zane was threatening to release the confidential court records.

Prime focus was on a December 2, 2010, paragraph posted after the Thanksgiving Week deposition of Deputy Sheriff Kurt Milliman:

“If the time comes that I feel my life, my family’s lives or any one’s life is in danger because of Nygren, I will send what I have directly to the Media. (And I’m not talking about those hack newspapers here in McHenry County.)”

Another of Zane’s blog posts elicited this explanation:

“I had just heard [Scott] Milliman’s deposition the read the Northwest Herald article about it when I posted this. I was very afraid for my life. I had been down to Mexico…We sat there [in Milliman's deposition] discussing murder, drugs, illegal immigrants…the kind of things people get killed for.”

Sotos asked if there were any other reason “to think your life might be in danger.”

“Yes,” Zane replied. “I have a Special Prosecutor going on with regard to [Nygren's using his office for] for campaigning.”

Milliman’s deposition had a major impact on Zane.   While discussing the people he had been asked to kill, “he [Milliman] started crying a couple of times,” Zane said.

“When he testified, he was terrified.  His brother gets killed six months later.”

Pretty much the same litany of alleged crimes by Sheriff Nygren, as stated by former Deputy Scott Milliman in his deposition, came up Tuesday as came up in the last hearing before McHenry County Associate Judge Thomas Meyer in the Special Prosecutor case.

Shortly after the deposition, Scott Milliman was put on administrative leave for not telling the truth, among other stated reasons.  Later he was fired for violating a “truthfulness” requirement of the Departmental General Orders.

The leak of the Scott Milliman confidential deposition to the Northwest Herald came up for discussion, as did a confidential Woodstock Police report that was distributed in the Sheriff’s Department prior to the February, 2010, GOP primary election.

The Pavlin case was revealed as the topic of several Zane blog posts which hinted at information that he knew that his readers did not.  Zane revealed he gave Grand Jury testimony and saw the deputies involved write their reports together.

Judge Kapala tried the Pavlin case and reached this decision.

Rose’s attorney Dennis Giovannini was in the courtroom during part of the session.

Kurt Milliman’s murder took place down the road from Centegra’s Woodstock Hospital and the Sheriff’s Department investigation found no involvement beyond the man charged with shooting him and the man’s wife, whom, as the official story goes, had offered oral sex in a Craig’s List ad that Kurt Milliman had answered.

There was some heretofore unreported information about contacts Zane received from policemen in other municipalities seeking advice on how to publicize racial profiling and civil rights violations as Zane had.

Those calls came from policemen in

• Berwyn
• Blue Island
• Carbondale
• Metropolis

Also appearing in court today was McHenry County Sheriff’s Sergeant Greg Pyle.

Prior to his brief appearance, his attorney William McCarthy argued that notice had been inadequate, pointing out that personal service had not been made until he appeared in court on his McHenry County criminal charges last Friday.

Although McCarthy pointed out that Pyle would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against the possibility of self-incrimination, Judge Kapala ruled that the letter mailed to his parents’ home, plus the personal service was adequate.

Pyle asserted his right against potential self-incrimination on all questions, although, the Judge did allow him to explain his service in the Sheriff’s Department

Questions from Horwitz that went unanswered included his computer training and expertise.

Cooling their heels outside the courtroom all day were future witnesses Rose Seipler, Scott Milliman and John Nelson.

McHenry County Sheriff’s Department Affirmative Action Officer, Donald Leist, was in the courtroom.

The next hearing is at 9:30 on May 23th.
= = = = =

Articles explaining the dueling sanctions motions:

• Sheriff Seeks Sanctions for Privacy Violations, While Violating Privacy Order or “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 1
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 2
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 3
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 4
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 5
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 6

Links to the articles containing the entire 10,000+ word transcript from December 15th, mainly about Sheriff Deputy Scott Milliman’s deposition, can be found at the links below:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6
• Part 7
• Part 8
• Part 9
• Part 10

Wednesday afternoon, Associate Judge Thomas Meyer heard testimony from McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi about the “conflict of interest” that Bianchi sees in representing Sheriff Keith Nygren in some seven suits and preparing 4-5 opinions and at the same time investigating, indicting and prosecuting him.

Bianchi based his position on the Rules of Conduct for Illinois attorneys, which basically says that an attorney can’t both defend and prosecute a client.

With little variation, that was the State’s Attorney refrain throughout the afternoon court session.

When asked whether specific criminal allegations, e.g., use of taxpayer dollars to use a 7-pointed star for political purposes or the more general use of public funds to promote his political career, would result in action on his part against the Sheriff, Bianchi’s repeated reply was.

• “I will not” and
• “It would be unethical to do so.”

There were variations on those answers, but all had the same meaning:

Bianchi will not investigate Sheriff because it would be an ethical lapse that would put his law license in jeopardy.

Five specific situations beyond the use of public money to affix a star that seemingly started out as a campaign symbol were presented by Horwitz to Bianchi for a reply as to whether he would investigate them, if allegations were brought to his office:

1. 

   Blake Horwitz

   The illegal transportation of Hispanics from Mexico to McHenry County

2. Solicitation of murder of Judge [Conrad] Floeter
3. Solicitation of murder of David Bachmann
4. Conspiracy with Jose Rivera in the generation of fraudulent loan documents
5. Causing dismissal of criminal allegations brought against drivers who were driving vehicles in McHenry County

At one point during the hearing, Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz said,

“Then the Sheriff gets a free ride by virtue of his position.”

Judge Meyer seemed to make it clear that the 7-pointed star issue was what was under consideration and not the other issues that Horwitz advanced.

As Horwitz said, “I think I’m done,” Bianchi broke out in a broad smile.

When Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell got his turn, he seemed to be trying to show the Judge that Bianchi made a conscious choice not to initiate any criminal probe of Nygren.

It is obvious that State’s Attorneys have great discretionary power. Perhaps, Caldwell was trying to emphasize that fact.

Consider this question and answer:

Caldwell: “You are able to pass your preferences as it concerns Mr. Seipler’s petition?

Bianchi: “I never looked at the merits. The question came and I couldn’t do it.”

After the attorneys finished their cases in the 27-month trial, Judge Meyer said, “I’m going to do some of my own research.”

He seemed to think he might be able to do in a short period of time and render a decision later in the afternoon, but after 15-20 minutes he returned to his courtroom and announced he had no decision.

Judge Meyer set the next court date for April 25th, the same day as he will handle Horwitz’ request for sanctions against Nygren’s personal attorney Mark Gummerson.

Neither principal were in attendance. Nygren sent his new Affirmative Action Officer Don Leist, who moved over from the State’s Attorney’s Office. Seipler has friends but, apparently, was on the job he regained after a long, drawn-out challenge by Nygren to an arbitrator’s decision re-instating him as a Deputy Sheriff.

Below is some of the evidence relating to the morphing of the 7-pointed star from a campaign symbol to a logo for the Sheriff’s Department:

During the Monday morning hearing before Associate Judge Thomas Meyer, he referred to a letter that Zane Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz had sent McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi.

Because what is mentioned in the February 1, 2011, letter may be brought up in questioning of Bianchi, should he testify in the trail to determine his availability to investigate Sheriff Keith Nygren on allegations brought forward by Seipler in his effort to get a Special Prosecutor named, McHenry County Blog reproduces the letter below:

Besides the allegation of the 7-pointed campaign star being placed on county property tax taxpayer expense, other questions involve whether Bianchi’s office would investigate and, if probable cause is found, prosecute Nygren for allegations

• “relative to the solicitation of murder concerning Judge [Conrad] and David Bachmann”
• “relative to Illegal transportation of Hispanic from Mexico to McHenry County”
• “referable to conspiring with Jose Rivera in the generation of fraudulent loan documents”
• “referable to conspiring with Jose Rivera to cause the dismissal of criminal allegations lodged against drivers”

Horwitz’ letter also asks Bianchi if the following statement is accurate:

“There is a policy at MCSA to not prosecute or investigate Sheriff Nygren as he is client of the MCSA.

“Sheriff Nygren is a client of the MCSA in civil cases. To prosecute or investigate Sheriff Nygren while he is
also a client in civil cases would create a conflict.

“If the MCSA had to withdraw its appearance on behalf of Mr. Nygren in connection with the civil cases, there would be significant costs to tax papers as private counsel would most likely have to be employed to defend Mr. Nygren. The costs of private counsel can be expensive.”

Silly me.

I thought that the over two-year journey to see whether Associate Judge Thomas Meyer would appoint a Special Prosecutor to look into allegations of wrong-doing by McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren would be over today.

Instead Meyer dismissed all the motions before him, including the first, short one filed by Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell which asked the Judge to make a decision on whether a Special Prosecutor should be appointed, considering it was in his discretion.

After clearing the decks of the tortuously argued motions, the Judge set a trial for April 25, 2012, at 10 AM.  [Gus Philpott notes that the evidence will be take at 1:30 that afternoon.]

At that trial McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi may be on the stand.

That apparently would not be necessary if Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz had been willing to stipulate to the contents on the deposition which Horwitz, Nygren’s personal attorney Mark Gummerson, and Caldwell conducted.

Nygren is no longer a party to the case.

Apparently in questioning of Bianchi, Horwitz will be able to ask about Bianchi’s availability to prosecute specifically named crimes, solicitation to murder seeming to be the most serious.

But Judge Meyer stressed, “I’m not going to take evidence on specific crimes.”

Caldwell mentioned a letter that Horwitz had written.

“His letter may well add context to specific (allegations),” Judge Meyer replied.

Before orally denying all the motions, Meyer said, “I need that testimony,” adding later, “The only was to resolve this is witness testimony.”

Prior to adjourning, Judge Meyer entered into the record an encounter he had with Nygren “on official business” in a private judicial corridor.  Something about “security.”

He “was there to see another judge…it was only in passing that I knew he was here.  I told him I think it would be more appropriate if you did not come into my chamber.”

The issue of sanctions requested by Horwitz against Gummerson will be up in court next on April 11th at 11:30.  [Gus Philpott notes that it is now set at 1:30.]

= = = = =

Out in the hallway Horwitz expressed his extreme displeasure at the article the Northwest Herald reporter had written about Zane Seipler’s reinstatement in his job as Deputy Sheriff after an almost four-year court marathon in which Sheriff Nygren refused to accept

• the arbitrator’s decision,
• Judge Meyer’s Administrative Review decision upholding the arbitrator’s decision,
• the 2nd Appellate Court’s ruling upholding Judge Meyer’s decision upholding the arbitrator’s decision.

Finally, when the Illinois Supreme Court’s refused to review the 2nd Appellate Court panel’s decision, Nygren made as many other delaying moves as the law allowed.

The arbitrator ruled that Seipler deserved a three-day suspension for doing something similar to what a Nygren favorite did and got such a punishment.

I didn’t write an article on the story, but did comment on how the online headlines got harsher the second day the story was posted.

= = = = =

As I’m driving back to Crystal Lake, going through my head was the Beatles 1970 song, “Long and Winding Road.”

Any wonder why?

The big news out of Judge Thomas Meyers’ courtroom today is that he announced he will render a decision on March 26.

That’s the first day of Spring Break for Crystal Lake Grade School students, probably of bigger importance to them than whether Meyer decides to name a Special Prosecutor to investigate whether Sheriff Keith Nygren spent tax dollars to advance his campaign by putting six-sided stars, used first in his campaign, all over the Sheriff’s Department.

The Judge, however, continues not to be interested in whether a crime has been committed, but, rather, whether a conflict exists on McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s part that would justify naming someone to stand in his stead and see whether Nygren deserves to be indicted.

There were arguments that appeared arcane to this non-lawyer.

It comes down to the fact that Meyer has the discretion to appoint a Special Prosecutor if he wants to.

But, he doesn’t have to.

No doubt about that.