McHenry County Blog

It’s OK for Chicago Alderman to carry concealed handguns, but not its citizens.

It’s OK for suburban Cook County residents to carry concealed guns, but not Chicagoans.

That’s what I conclude after listening to part of a WBEZ interview with State Senator Kwame Raoul, the sponsor of the Illinois State Senate’s concealed carry legislation.

First he wanted the Cook County Sheriff to approve all concealed carry permits outside of Chicago. Chicago residents would have to pass the muster of Chicago’s top cop.

Then Chicago resident Raoul apparently figured out that some municipalities like Elgin, Barrington, Buffalo Grove are in both Cook and surrounding counties.

People on one side of those cities would have the right to protect themselves on the street, but not others.

Oh, the confusion.

So Raoul backed off from denying most suburban Cook County residents from their Second Amendment rights, as defined by the Federal Appellate Court sitting in Chicago, and decided to focus on his hometown, the place where people need to be able to protect themselves more than anywhere else in Illinois.

He would only require his constituents and other Chicago residents to prove they had a need to carry a weapon.

And, his bill would allow Home Rule municipalities in suburban Cook County the power to require approval from a local law enforcement official. (I didn’t listen long enough to know whether that would be the local police chief or the Cook County Sheriff.)

Basic economics teaches that when one prices something high that few will be sold.

Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has proposed that Cook County residents be charged $300 to apply for a concealed carry license. That’s what the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

That will keep poor blacks and Latinos, not to mention white people from being able to legally protect themselves.

John Lott made that point in is “More Guns, Less Crime” (review here of most recent 2010 edition).

It is so intuitive that I wonder if any of the liberal commentators will pick up on what appears to be racial discrimination.

The article tells of Dart speaking “to elderly people in the south suburbs. They complained that the police were unresponsive. Some said they were regularly burglarized while they attended church.”

Does he think elderly people have $300 to spare in order to exercise a Constitutional Right?

The Federal Appellate Court decision granting concealed carry rights to Illinois residents does not say that poor people have less of a right than middle class and rich people to carry guns to protect themselves.

As the decision says,

“The Supreme Court has decided that the [Second A]mendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.”

Dart said the $300 fee would pay for administrative fees.”

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

U.S. SUES COOK COUNTY AND COUNTY PENSION FUND to Enforce the Employment Rights of Army RESERVE Member

CHICAGO – The United States today filed a civil lawsuit alleging that a Cook County pension fund and Cook County willfully violated federal law by failing to allow a U.S. Army Reserve member to lawfully contribute to her pension for the time she was serving in the armed forces, announced Gary S. Shapiro, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and the Justice Department.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago on behalf of Army Reserve Capt. Latoya A. Hayward, of Chicago, against the Cook County and the County Employees’ and Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Cook County. It alleges violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).

According to the complaint, in 2008 Hayward began working for John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital, which is owned and operated by Cook County.

During her employment with Stroger Hospital, Hayward was mobilized for a two-year tour of duty with the Army Reserves starting on July 27, 2009.

During Hayward’s period of active service, she was mobilized as a nurse case manager at Walter Reed Hospital as part of the Warrior Transition Brigade.

Upon Hayward’s return from duty, the complaint alleges that the county pension fund notified her that not only was she ineligible to make payments into her pension for the 90-day grace period following her active military service, but also that her employee contributions for the two-year period of her active military service would be subject to a 3 percent interest fee.

Among the protections provided by USERRA are pension-related benefits that treat service members who are called to active duty as if they have had no break in service for purpose of the administration of pension benefits.

According to the complaint, both of the pension fund’s requirements for her participation in the plan violated USERRA’s pension protection provisions.

“Members of the Army Reserves sacrifice time away from their jobs to serve their country,” said Mr. Shapiro. “Federal law ensures that they are not discriminated against after they have returned and their employment rights are protected,” he said.

“When Congress enacted USERRA, it was to protect our men and women in uniform from experiencing this kind of alleged injustice,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.

“The Justice Department is committed to vigorously enforcing federal laws that protect the employment rights of our service members.”

The case stems from a referral by the U.S. Department of Labor following an investigation by the department’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service.

The Civil Rights Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey M. Hansen, are representing the government and working with the Labor Department to protect the jobs and benefits of National Guard and Reserve service members upon their return to civilian life.

Additional information about USERRA can be found on the Justice Department website: www.servicemembers.gov and www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp, as well as on the Labor Department’s website at www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/main.htm.

Multiple sources have told McHenry County Blog that the McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s Office is making contact with the three newly-elected members of the County Board to advise them of the conflict of interest that would exist if they did not resign their current posts.

The three and their current positions follow:

• Carolyn Schofield, Crystal Lake City Council
• Mike Skala, Huntley District 158 School Board
• Mike Walkup, Crystal Lake Park District

Of the three, Walkup has resigned as of midnight Thursday, November 15th.

Schofield has announced her intention to resign.

Skala has said that he does not intend to resign until February.

In the article linked above, you can read  1993 opinion from Attorney General Roland Burris that concludes serving on a school board and a county board at the same time is “incompatible, and one person may not serve simultaneously in both offices.”

Delaying his resignation from the School Board until February would allow the remaining members of the Board to appoint his replacement for the next two years.

Resignation prior to being sworn into the County Board would allow people to run to fill the remaining two years of this term.

Pete Gonigam at First Electric Newspaper has details of Skala’s resignation plans.

And, according to this email today from Defend the Vote‘s Sharon Meroni, the Democratic Party election officials won’t even tell who the judges will be who take votes from nursing home residents.

The voting will be Friday and she seeks Republicans to volunteer to ensure chicanery does not occur.

Editor Note: Aaron Del Mar, Cook County Republican Chairman, is authorizing this investigation of the nursing home vote in Cook County.

Subject: RE: UNLAWFUL? NURSING HOME – Legal ALERT

This is the problem…

Noah Praetz has stated he cannot send me ANY lists of nursing home judges because he sent me wrong data before and I reacted by asking the question with all of you cc’d. This is like punishing the recipient of his error.

Time is short. Friday is voting day for the nursing homes. In March 75% of the nursing home residents’ rights were violated. Yet not one of you, except Noah, responds?

How can this be?

Who is going to watch these voters?

Where is the Illinois State Board of Elections?

For the FIRST time ever, Chicago managed to get voting Republicans into the appropriate nursing home election judge positions. (info via Commissioner Richard Cowen).

This compared to Cook County which is COMPLETELY stonewalling all of our access… And refuses to send us the names of the election judges for the Nursing Homes?

Only they know who the mysterious judges are. Judges, that Cook County has already had trainings for. Did they sign in to train anonymously?

In Cook County, our most vulnerable voters vote on Friday. Over 3000.

Our election security is partisan based.

The law lays out how the nursing home patient vote is to be conducted.

Cook County is in violation of these laws.

Who is protecting the nursing home resident’s vote? Who has the jurisdiction? Please, I need to know, are we alone in this battle to protect the most vulnerable voters in Cook County?

Regards,

Sharon Meroni 
312-242-1818

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

TWO COOK COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW ANALYSTS CHARGED WITH ACCEPTING $1,500 BRIBE TO FACILITATE $14,000 PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION

CHICAGO — Two analysts for the Cook County Board of Review were arrested today on federal bribery charges for allegedly accepting $1,500 to facilitate reducing by more than $14,000 the property tax assessments on three residential properties identified by a confidential source who was cooperating with federal agents.

The defendants, Thomas Hawkins and John Racasi, allegedly discussed scheming with others to facilitate property tax reductions in exchange for bribes; however, the complaint charges them with accepting just one bribe.

The Board of Review is comprised of three commissioners, each of whom has analysts and other staff who provide recommendations as to how the commissioners should vote in reviewing appeals of the Cook County Assessor’s property tax assessments.

Hawkins, an analyst since December 2004, and Racasi, an analyst since March 2006, were both on the staff of Board of Review Commissioner A in September 2008, when they allegedly accepted the $1,500 bribe payment.

They were not charged at the time because of ongoing investigations involving Confidential Source 1 (CS1), according to a criminal complaint that was unsealed today following their arrests.

Hawkins, 48, and Racasi, 51, both of Chicago, were each charged with one count of accepting a bribe, and were scheduled to appear at 2:00 p.m. today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole in Federal Court.

The arrests and charges were announced by Gary S. Shapiro, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI’s Chicago City Public Corruption Task Force led the investigation with assistance from the Chicago Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division, which is a task force member.

According to the complaint affidavit, uncharged Individual A had mentioned to CS1 that Individual A had the ability to help CS1 get his property taxes reduced.

When CS1 began cooperating with the FBI in July 2008, CS1 raised the property tax issue with Individual A, who subsequently introduced CS1 to Hawkins, who, in turn, introduced CS1 to Racasi.

CS1 recorded numerous meetings and telephone conversations with Hawkins and Racasi in which they discussed facilitating property tax reductions in exchange for bribes.

The affidavit describes CS1 as a Chicago police officer who began cooperating during an investigation of public corruption and gun-trafficking in the Chicago area.

CS1 has not been charged but will likely be charged in the future with attempted extortion and firearms-related offenses, the affidavit states.

The complaint details recorded conversations in which the defendants allegedly discussed a scheme to reduce property tax assessments for bribes, but does not allege any specific instances beyond the charged bribe paid by CS1.

In July 2008, CS1 and Individual A discussed a scheme to reduce the property tax assessment on CS1’s homes in Chicago and Burbank, and a condominium in Tinley Park.

They discussed the fact that lawyers typically charged a fee of 33 percent of the amount of the reduction, while they believed they could obtain between 20 and 30 percent of the tax reduction through a bribery scheme.

In a recorded meeting on July 28, 2008, CS1 and Individual A discussed using Individual A’s influence with the Board of Review to get property taxes lowered for CS1 and recruiting business owners to apply for property tax reductions.

CS1 provided Individual A with the Property Index Numbers (PINs) for the homes he owned in Chicago and Burbank.

In August 2008, Individual A introduced CS1 to Hawkins and they allegedly discussed Hawkins’ ability to assist them in getting assessments reduced.

Two days later, CS1 recorded a meeting at a restaurant with Hawkins, Individual A, a Restaurant Employee, and the Restaurant Owner in which they discussed obtaining property tax reductions through Individual A and Hawkins.

The complaint alleges that Hawkins said:

“Right, because it’s just three signatures, we only need, it’s three commissioners, we only need two, two of the three, we only, each commissioner has a staff and we’re analysts so we handle all the property taxes and go through the files, find out if the assessor is, is just enough because see most of them always come in high anyway until we knock it down.”

Later in August 2008, CS1 recorded a meeting with Hawkins, Racasi and Restaurant Employee, who provided PINs for properties owned by Restaurant Owner.

Racasi allegedly provided CS1 detailed information about the amount of money he made for obtaining property tax assessment reductions for single-family residences.

When dealing with taxpayers he knew, Racasi said he charged $150 a PIN up front and another $150 when the tax reduction was completed.

For individuals he did not know, Racasi said he charged double.

Racasi also said the “fees” had to be split three ways among the three staffers voting on a particular reduction.

If one of the three analysts did not participate, then the other two would divide the money and override the third analyst, according to the complaint affidavit.

In September 2008, CS1, Hawkins and Racasi allegedly discussed the specifics of the bribe CS1 would pay for a reduction on his property tax assessments.

During their conversations, Hawkins, Racasi, and CS1 allegedly discussed a broader scheme and agreed upon charging others $500 for each residential property going forward.

Upon agreeing on a $500 fee, the affidavit states Hawkins said,

“We’re going to have a lot. Let’s do a $500 [inaudible] fee. Alright? That’s the whole thing [inaudible] for every house because there’s going to be so many houses. That way nobody gets hoggish, and there is room to play if you want to play.”

Racasi and CS1 agreed, the complaint states.

On Sept. 11, 2008, Hawkins and Racasi allegedly agreed to reduce the assessed values on CS1’s Chicago and Burbank properties and the Tinley Park property owned by Individual C for three years beginning with the 2008 tax year.

Hawkins and Racasi provided CS1 with analysis sheets for these properties, which could be used to calculate the tax savings that a property owner would realize over the three-year period.

In return for the $1,500 bribe, Hawkins and Racasi allegedly promised CS1 a total tax savings for the three properties over the three-year period of at least approximately $14,209 if a lesser reduction on the Burbank property was used, and a total tax savings of approximately $14,900 if a higher reduction on the Burbank property was used.

The complaint alleges that the bribe payment was made on Sept. 17, 2008, when CS1 met with Hawkins and Racasi and handed the money to Racasi.

Hawkins allegedly assured CS1 that Racasi would later provide Hawkins with his share of the money.

The government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Margaret J. Schneider and Michael T. Donovan.

Bribery carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. If convicted, the Court must impose a reasonable sentence under federal statutes and the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The public is reminded that a complaint contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Over the weekend I became convinced that McHenry County Republican Party Chairman Mike Tryon is the only one who can either take steps to allow Tea Party activist Tonya Franklin a chance to get on the ballot to run against Democrat “Chainsaw Jack” Franks or be responsible for Franks’ running unopposed.

During his last term as Republican Party County Chairman (and County Treasurer), Bill LeFew gave Franks a free ride. That was in 2006.

State Rep. Mike Tryon took LeFew’s place after the 2008 primary. No one filed in the primary election to run against Franks. During the period running up the the GOP organizing convention, Tryon was busy solidifying support.

Although all the Central Committee had to do was nominate a candidate that that candidate would appear on the ballot, Franks got another free ride.

In 2010, self-starter John O’Neill decided if no one else was going to run against Franks he would.

And he did.

I remember his telling me how excited Republicans were to have someone carrying showing the Republican’s banner, so to speak.

A lot better than flying a white flag from the party headquarters in Crystal Lake.

(There was one Dorr Township precinct with Crystal Lake addresses in Franks’ district and still is after Franks eliminated all of his the precincts he lost during last year’s reapportionment, which, like everything else in Springfield is pretty much controlled by the man Jack Franks has voted for for House Speaker seven times so far.)

This year no one was recruited by the Republican Party to pass petitions to run against “Chainsaw Jack,” although to be fair, the reason for that nickname did not surface until after the filing deadline had passed.

Trying to position himself so that he could win a statewide Democratic Party primary, Franks got family and friends to put a couple of hundred thousand dollars into his campaign fund just before the end of June, 2009, campaign filing deadline. Franks wanted to be the Democratic Party candidate for Governor.

Comparing his resources with other Democratic legislators who might have statewide ambitions led me to the finding that he has the fourth highest amount of money in the bank.

Since the beginning in 1998, Franks has said he was Pro-Choice at candidates’ nights.

But his voting record at one point could be argued to be more Pro-Life than the Republican he defeated.

But he wasn’t Pro-Choice enough for Personal PAC, the pro-abortion group that requires candidates to say they don’t support and limiting of abortion in Illinois. (Currently, one can have an abortion the day before a due date and it will be legal.)

Knowing he had to have this big bucks Political Action Committee at least neutral in a statewide race, Franks agreed with their wishes and in 2008 and 2010 was endorsed by Personal PAC.

And, then there’s the homosexual vote.

Franks has been going out of his way to court gays and lesbians, even being quoted saying favorable things in the Windy City Times about the action of a northeastern Lake County gay teenager.

And, in an attempt to curry favor, he voted for the civil unions bill.

To make nice-nice with Com Ed (they don’t call it the “power company” just because it usually delivers electricity), he voted for that monopoly’s electric rate increase bill, announcing his break with populism the night before the vote to a favored TV reporter and introduced a bill to allow Com Ed to cut down every tree within twenty feet of an electric line, hence, then nickname “Chainsaw Jack.”

So, if Republican Chairman Mike Tryon doesn’t want to throw in the towel for a second time, what does he have to do to give Tonya Franklin a fighting chance to get on the ballot.

It takes more than gaining Party approval.

That “party approval,” by the way has been made more difficult.

Now, a Central Committee must meet and name two members of a “Representative Committee” from the 63rd State Rep. District. As I understand the law, those two have to be from Franks’ district and, together with Tryon, they have the ability to nominate someone to run against Franks.

But, since last time around, in order to make it more difficult for minority parties to put someone up against incumbent Democrats, the General Assembly and Governor added another hurdle.

The nominee must get at least 500 “good” signatures on petitions, the same thing that would have been required if one had filed in the primary election.

The deadline for filing both the party nomination papers and the petitions and all the other paperwork that primary candidates have to file is June 4th.

Read the by-laws of the McHenry County Republican Central Committee and it says that there was supposed to be a meeting last Thursday night.

But, I was told by Mark Daniel, the new Central Committee Vice Chairman, who is also Township Chairman in Nunda Township, that the May meeting was canceled.

Maybe other GOP Precinct Committeeman got a routine notice of the cancellation, but I got nothing until I asked Daniel.

So, how does one call a Special Meeting before the “regular” third Thursday of the month meeting in June, which, of course, is after the June 4th deadline.

The by-laws says there has to be a ten-day written notice.

If mailed today, under that rule, the earliest a meeting could be held would be after the Memorial Day weekend giving Tonya Franklin’s volunteers one weekend to gather the signatures.

She’d need a lot of volunteers to do that but, if she could pull it off, it would pretty well put to bed the Establishment argument that she has no support. Indeed, I doubt there is any candidate on the ballot in McHenry County who got all of his or her signatures in one weekend.

Making the task even more difficult is the June 5th Wisconsin Recall Election date, which one might expect to drain off volunteers who might assist Franklin gather signatures.

However, state law does not say that ten days notice must be given.

An attorney I talked to this weekend said that in emergencies, such as the shortage of time between now and June 4th certainly seems to represent, notice could be given via a shorter notice period.

I was told that calling twice notifying Committeemen of a meeting two days hence would probably be good enough.

The process, however, must be initiated by Chairman Mike Tryon.

And, we all know that there are GOP Precinct Committeemen who are on Jack Franks’ fundraising “Host Committee.” (Not to mention Host Committee member Sheriff Keith Nygren, who applied for appointment as Sheriff as a Democrat when Democrat Art Tyrell resigned.)

From talking to John O’Neill, I believe there are current Republican Precinct Committee who campaigned for Franks over O’Neill in 2010.

So Franks has his own blowback machine within the McHenry County Republican Party.

You might say, there is something of a “McHenry County Combine,” with apologies to Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass.

Will Tryon follow the example of the new Cook County GOP Chairman?

Or do what he can to make sure that Jack Franks has a Republican Party opponent this fall?

Other articles that might be of interest follow:

4/29/12 Help Wanted – GOP Opponent for Labor-Lawyer-Lobbyist Democrat “Chainsaw Jack”

5/9/12 “Chainsaw Jack” Franks’ Drano Bill Makes Menards’ Shelf

5/9/12 Clock Is Running on Finding GOP Opponent for Jack Franks

5/10/12 Republican Candidate Steps Forward to Challenge Jack Franks

5/11/12 GOP Interviewing Committee Turns Thumbs Down on Woman Who Volunteered to Run Against Jack Franks

5/11/12 Jack Franks Now Free to Help Democrats Running for the McHenry County Board

5/12/12 Who Could Name a Candidate to Run Against “Chainsaw Jack” Franks?

5/13/12 The McHenry County Committee Who Interviewed Tonya Franklin for State Rep. Vacancy against Jack Franks

5/16/12 19 Days Until Jack Franks Gets a Third Free Ride from McHenry County Republicans

5/17/12 18 Days Until McHenry County Republicans Give Democrat “Chainsaw Jack” Franks Ability to Campaign Statewide with Impunity

5/18/12 Wouldn’t You Think Tom Cross Would Want an Opponent for “Chainsaw Jack” Franks? 17 Days to Get One

5/19/12 16 Days for McHenry County Republicans to Put Someone on the Ballot against State Rep. “Chainsaw Jack” Franks

5/20/12 15 Days from “Chainsaw Jack” Franks’ Big Celebration Because the McHenry County GOP Didn’t Put Up an Opponent, Even though Tonya Franklin Volunteered

The inequity of the Illinois real estate tax system hit home again last Thursday as I read Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown’s piece.

In it, he points out that Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas has her Water Tower Place condo up for sale for $2.9 million.

That, in itself, didn’t raise my eyebrows.

Her reported tax bill of $16,955 did.

That’s about twice my last tax bill of $8,873.66.

Guarantee you that our two houses off Crystal Lake on the busiest road in Lakewood (6,500 vehicle a day when measured about ten years ago–more than some four-lane Interstates in Western Illinois), is not worth $1.45 million, half of Pappas’ asking price.

Then, Sunday in the Sun-Times I read Governor Pat Quinn paid only $3,938 to the Cook County tax collector last year.

Zillow estimates the Governor’s digs are worth $182,500.

Let’s do some division on the percentage each of these Cook County politicians pay in property taxes each year.

Pappas first.

$16,955 divided by $2.9 million is .0058. That looks like just a tad below 6/10 of one percent.

Even accounting for the asking price being higher that what Pappas’ place is worth, that’s a really, really low property tax bill.

Now, Quinn.

$3,938 divided by $182,500 is .022 or 2.2%.

Those percentages are called “effective tax rates.”

They are the only way to cut through the complexities of property tax jargon anywhere in the world.

Divide the tax bill by the property value and you can compare property tax burdens anywhere.

If I were Pat Quinn, I’d be disturbed at the higher tax burden that he was bearing, compared to Pappas.

The Skinner household had an appraisal done and found our home was worth $305,000 on January 1, 2011. (Zillow says it’s worth $313,600.)

While it is not quite apples to apples, dividing our tax bill of $8,873.66 by that numbers indicates we paid about 2.9% of our home’s value last year (2.8%, if using Zillow’s price).

So we are paying almost one-third more for the taxes on our McHenry County home than the Governor is.

And we are paying about 500% more than Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas.

Somehow I don’t think I would have gotten that big a break were I still McHenry County Treasurer.

And if you think real estate tax inequities are just an Illinois problem for politicians, consider this (which seems to have been dropped from the most version) from a Chicago Tribune article about the Greek parliamentary elections:

“My vote was a protest vote because they cut my pension,” said 75-year-old pensioner Kalliopi, her fists clenched in anger.

“I live in a basement but pay the same (property) tax as someone who lives in a penthouse,” said Kalliopi after voting (emphasis added).

Imagine my surprise when I saw the billboard going east on Route 176 just before Route 31.

It reminded me of the real thing.

No “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” however.

I’d recommend eating at the restaurant that’s part of The Cowboy General Store.

And if you would like to see the Cook County County Fair ribbons I have periodically run in connection to Cook County atrocities, you can see them at the photo place across the road from the restaurant.

A sign on the wall of the trailer indicated no photos were allowed inside.

When I asked permission to take photos of the blue ribbons that the photographer had won at the Crook County Fair, I received it.

When I was asked why, I told them I wrote about Chicago and Cook County.

“I thought Chicago was in Crook County,” she replied.

This past Friday there were stories in the Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune about the request by David Koschman’s mother for a Cook County Special Prosecutor to be named by Judge Michael Toomin.

It caught my interest because of McHenry County Sheriff’s Deputy Zane Seipler’s effort to get a Special Prosecutor named to investigate whether his 2010 GOP primary election opponent Sheriff Keith Nygren used taxpayer resources to advance his political aspirations.

Association Judge Thomas Meyer has scheduled a trial April 25th to take evidence of whether McHenry County State’s Attorney is “available” to investigate allegations made against Nygren.

Meyer is not interested in seeing evidence about any alleged crimes, saying that job is for the Special Prosecutor, if he names one.

Cook County Judge Toomin, on the other hand, is looking at the evidence.

In Cook County, State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez argues that her office has no problem investigating the allegation that former Mayor Richard Daley’s nephew R.J. Vanecko deserved to be indicted for having killed Koschman.

How different from McHenry County’s situation.