Terry Ekl, attorney for vindicated McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, argues in filing below against Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen’s motion that another judge should not replace trial Judge Joseph McGraw when his contempt of court motion is considered. You can read McQueen’s argument here.
Here is what Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen has filed in the contempt of court action sought by McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, the man he indicted, but could not convict on criminal charges.
Joyce Synek and her attorney Ernest DiBenedetto after Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen’s case was dismissed.
This is a continuation of what is in McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s motion for contempt of court against Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen and Quest investigators Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty before Rockford Judge Thomas McGraw.
The motion also charges that McQueen knew there was a virus on Bianchi assistant Joyce Synek’s computer, but also withheld that information. Ekl argues that the IT Department’s removal of the virus could explain the emails McQueen and Tonigan said were “missing” from Synek’s machine.
So, why involve Synek in the case.
In an August 6, 2010, email, McQueen writes Scigalski they “should bring some pressure by charging Synek in a complain with perjury and arresting her.”
Scigalski failed to provide notes on interviews with McHenry County Treasurer Bill LeFew, Suzanne Lockhart and Demetri Tsilimigras.
Addition examples are provided.
Concerning a motion to remove Judge McGraw, Ekl reveals that information contained in the motion was “leaked” to an internet website, McHenryCountyLeaks.blogspot.com. [Exhibit KK.]
The article was entitled, “Bianchi’s Judge Received Payments from IASAAP” ["Illinois Association of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor." Exhibit Q. Not the exact title of the article.]
Thomas McQueen. Photo Credit: First Electric Newspaper.
Robert Scigalski. Photo credit: First Electric Newspaper.
“Great leak, Bob,” McQueen emailed Scigalski.
Turning to Quest investigator Hanretty, Ekl points to information withheld from interviews with Sue Serdar, the former Chairman of the Pro-Life Victory PAC, and Phil Weyma, one of its officers.
McQueen had advanced the hypothesis that because the Political Action Committee had made contributions to both Bianchi and another candidate resulted in a quid pro quo between Bianchi and the other candidate, who was also brought into the case.
That possibility was specifically denied by Serdar, but the denial was not provided to the Defense.
In a motion for sanctions held in Rockford, Hanretty first testified that Serdar told him there was no “this for that” arrangement. A few minutes later he reversed his testimony.
Withholding statements made by Jeffrey Bora about how a supposed “nephew” of Bianchi was given special treatment so he could qualify for an upcoming First Offender Program also comes in criticism, as do reports on Bianchi’s supposedly reducing a sentencing recommendation in another case from 5 to 4 years. Preliminary and final reports from Scigalski are “substantially different” on the sentence reduction count, the court filing claims.
Failure to tender 43 pages of notes from Quest investigate Reilly also is cited in the contempt motion. McQueen told Judge McGraw they didn’t exist.
Next Bianchi’s attorney writes, “Robert Scigalski gave false testimony on June 24, 2012 when he testified that he did not know who Mark Gummerson was. McQueen, who knew Scigalski’s testimony was false, failed to inform the Court and correct the record.”
Below Ekl expands: “Through the recently disclosed emails, it is now known on September 2, 2010, McQueen wrote an email to Scigalski, Tonigan and Jerger with a list of things to do in preparation of Bianchi’s indictment on September 10th. McQueen included in that list the instruction ‘NO MORE CONTACT WITH GUMMERSON.’ See email attached as Exhibit HH.”
Further, “On November 12, 2010, Scigalski wrote McQueen an email indicating that Gummerson was contacting witnesses in the investigation and that Gummerson had information about the pending investigation. Scigalski also told McQueen that he knew Gummerson was a friend of the Sheriff [Keith Nygren] and that ‘[i]f Gummerson is a friend of our position in this investigation when we all meet with him and tell him how he is ruining our chances.’ See email attached as Exhibit II.”
The brief also says that “McQueen failed to disclose witness statements made by Tom Carroll and Scigalski falsely testified under oath regarding Tom Carroll’s statements.”
Chapter and verse is offered as evidence in numerous exhibits.
The final part of Judge Michael Caldwell’s comments at the February 24, 2011, hearing had to do with contracts. The judge is still disturbed at the Trustees “trying to marginalize” Supervisor Linda Moore.
He warns the Trustees (and maybe their attorney Thomas DiCianni),
Judge Michael Caldwell
“…I want to caution everybody in the courtroom who’s involved in this case: The orders of this court have the force of law and they are supposed to be observed.
“Now, I know people who think they are more clever than I am and they probably are, but what happens to cute and clever people from time to time is they get too cute and they get too clever and they may suddenly find themselves in direct violation of a court order.
“When that happens, my discretion is always exercised with a jail term. I have never fined anybody for direct criminal contempt.”
Here’s the concluding part of the transcript:
THE COURT: Now, I shouldn’t have to say this, and I guess the reason I’m sort of chagrined by this whole thing is when I said the trustees had the power to contract, what I meant was that the trustees have the power to make a motion to approve the entry into a contract; and then when I went on in my decision to talk about Linda Moore’s obligation to sign the contracts, it is also her right as the trustee — as the supervisor to sign those contracts which have been approved by the board. It is a ministerial function of the supervisor.
It is demeaning and insulting for the board to sit there, approve a contract for a vendor and then sign it and not give her a copy.
It is her right to sign it, not yours.
She is the chief executive officer of the city.
That’s what they do.
That’s what they’re supposed to do.
MR. DiCIANNI: What if she refuses to sign it which is what –
THE COURT: That’s not the issue.
MR. DiCIANNI: — was evidenced.
THE COURT: That’s not the issue here. The issue here wasn’t that she refused to sign it.
The issue here was that it was approved by the trustees, they all signed it, she asked for a copy and she wasn’t given it.
They do it and then run around somebody; and, again, this is another instance of the trustees going off and trying to marginalize or avoid the responsibility for the duties of the trustee.
It’s not punishable at this moment in time, but I want to caution everybody in the courtroom who’s involved in this case: The orders of this court have the force of law and they are supposed to be observed.
Now, I know people who think they are more clever than I am and they probably are, but what happens to cute and clever people from time to time is they get too cute and they get too clever and they may suddenly find themselves in direct violation of a court order.
When that happens, my discretion is always exercised with a jail term. I have never fined anybody for direct criminal contempt.
I have jailed people for direct criminal contempt.
Grafton Township Trustees Gerry McMahon, Betty Zirk, Rob LaPorta and Barb Murphy.
Only twice in 13 years and I regretted the necessity to do both, but, folks, believe me, I’m not going to tolerate a lot of this nonsense in the future because I think that, by and large, there should be a way for this township to be governed in a much less contentious manner.
Do you want time to write this up?
MR. DiCIANNI: Yes.
THE COURT: Two weeks.
MR. DiCIANNI: Thank you.
THE COURT: Give me an order continuing it.
= = = = =
This is not the first time that Judge Caldwell has mentioned contempt in connection with the continuing Grafton Township dispute. See also
Grafton Township Supervisor leaving of the McHenry County Courthouse with her attorney, John Nelson, and husband David.
The hearing before Judge Michael Caldwell Tuesday was supposed to be about Moore’s attempt to move phone lines so she could answer them off-site.
Friday Judge Thomas Meyer had ordered telephones to be under the control of Grafton Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer, but since Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s attorney was in another court due to the short-noticed request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Meyer scheduled for a Tuesday hearing before Caldwell, who has Moore’s separation of powers case.
Tuesday’s hearing turned out to be as much on Moore’s having been moved out of her office by order of the Township Trustees and newly-hired Pam Fender’s having been moved into Moore’s former space than about mere telephone access.
The Trustees’ motion for a TRO to prevent Moore from switching the phone service from the township office is part of Moore’s separation of powers case being heard by Judge Michael Caldwell.
This is the same judge that put the kabash on the Trustees’ and former Supervisor John Rossi’s attempt to build a new township hall without adequate notice, and ordered a November referendum on whether voters want a new $3.5 million ($5 million with interest) township hall.
But, let’s cut to the chase. Read the court order’s language for yourself:
This cause coming on for status this 30th day of March, 2010, the Court ORDERS;
Linda Moore
1. Linda I. Moore is hereby restored to her office in the Grafton Township Hall ding the township business.2. The telephone lines shall remain in service to the Grafton Township Hall at 10109Vind, Huntley, IL 60102.
3. The access codes, access to offices, access to copy machines, faxes, mail, and any other township information shall not be restricted from any party.
4. The purpose of the Order shall be maintaining the status quo and restoring same to the last peaceable time between the parties.
5. The hearing on this case is set for April 13 and 14, 2010 from April 14 and 15, 2010.
6.The Township Administrator shall not be excluded from the office designated as the Township Main Public Office on Exhibit “A” attached to this order for reference and made a part hereof.
Grafton Township Trustee Gerry McMahon
Grafton Township Trustee Betty Zirk
Township Administrator Pam Fender
Discussion of the outer office part of the court order was going on between Moore attorney John Nelson and Trustees’ Ancel Glink’ litigating attorney, Thomas DiCanni, when one or more of the Trustees present—Gerry McMahon and Betty Zirk—plus Township Administrator Pam Fender said something.
“What’s the problem?” Caldwell asked sharply.
“I don’t want to hear any objection or interjection.
“If you can’t follow that simple advice, I will (hold you) in contempt of court.
“I have only used it twice, but I will use it a third time.
“Do you understand me?”
For the rest of the hearing, the three did not interrupt.
The possibility of holding Grafton Township officials in contempt of court came up in the prior suit as well. (Here’s where you can read about the earlier contempt comments.)
Latest Posts
