McHenry County Blog

Here is the indictment of Adel Daoud:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) No. 12 CR 723
)
) Violations: Title 18, United States
v. ) Code, Sections 844(i) and
) 2332a(a)(2)(D)
)
ADEL DAOUD ) INDICTMENT

COUNT ONE

The SPECIAL JANUARY 2012 GRAND JURY charges:

On or about September 14, 2012, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ADEL DAOUD,

defendant herein, attempted, without lawful authority, to use a weapon of mass destruction, namely, a destructive device, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 921(a)(4), against people and property within the United States in a manner that would have affected interstate and foreign commerce;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2332a(a)(2)(D).

COUNT TWO

The SPECIAL JANUARY 2012 GRAND JURY further charges:

On or about September 14, 2012, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ADEL DAOUD,

defendant herein, maliciously attempted to damage and destroy, by means of an explosive, a building used in an activity affecting interstate and foreign commerce, namely, a bar and restaurant and a liquor store;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i).

A TRUE BILL:
_____________________________
FOREPERSON
______________________________________
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
= = = = =
There’s a lot more information in the posts below:

• Terrorist Car Bombing of Bar Stopped, Jihadist: “It doesn’t make sense, now I’m living in America, and I have to go two thousand miles away to fight America. I’m already here.”
• Tribune Jihadist Car Bomber Coverage Failure: “Large Suburban Mall” One Target – “Look how scared they would be.”
• Criminal Complaint for Adel Daoud The details here are stunning.

Derrick Brown

That’s what people want now, according to Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown.

He uses State Rep. Derrick Smith, the Democrat appointed by Secretary of State Jesse White and political allies.

Smith was arrested for taking $7,000 in bribes.

He was subsequently indicted.

Then, because a primary opponent who used to be Executive Director of the local Republican Party was on the Democratic Party primary ballot, Democratic Party leaders urged voters to elect the alleged crook, rather than the white guy Republican.

The strategy worked.

Smith won the primary election.

Primary election results showed Derrick Smith won over 3-1.

The goal of the Dem leaders was for Smith to win nomination, but then resign.

He hasn’t done it.

Why?

Presumably he needs the month and, I understand, if convicted, he gets points for resigning from the office.

Since a trial is unlikely to be finished by the November election, Smith might even be elected.

Of course, the Illinois House could kick him out of his seat.

That’s happened before and one of these days I’ll write about it.

But, back to what stimulated this piece.

Brown writes,

“While I’m also of a mind Smith should go, it bears noting we seem to have reached a point in Illinois where innocent until proven guilty no longer applies to public officials under indictment.

“Now we clamor for their immediate removal based on the charges alone.”

Is my memory correct that the Northwest Herald called for McHenry County State’s Attorney to step down until his criminal indictment was resolved?

McHenry County Deputy Sheriff Gregory Pyle was indicted today by the McHenry County Grand Jury.

Notice of Greg Pyle's Indictment

Pyle, who lived in southern Crystal Lake, now is said to be living at 3233 W. Oakwood Drive in Joliet.

Greg Pyle

The following stories might be of interest:

• People Searching for Greg Pyle on Internet and, Apparently, Were Elsewhere – Bumped Up for Obvious Reasons
• The Deputy Sheriff Greg Pyle Story Unfolds – 10 Counts of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault
• Chicago Media Jump on Greg Pyle Story
• Headlines Keep Getting Worse for the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department
• The Warrant for McHenry County Deputy Sheriff Greg Pyle’s Arrest for Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault
• Greg Pyle No Longer on Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
• Source Says Greg Pyle Deep-Sixed His Personal Computers, but Illinois State Police Fished Them Out of a Pond
• Police at McHenry County Deputy Sheriff Greg Pyle’s Home
• Sheriff’s Department Finally Sends Greg Pyle’s Booking Photo
• Greg Pyle’s Crystal Lake Residence For Sale

Mike McCleary

Charges against the second McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Investigator have been dismissed by Rockford Judge Joseph McGraw.

His name is Mike McCleary.

Arguments were made for dismissal by his Rockford attorney Christopher DeRango. You can read the judge’s questions on the motion here.  McGraw said he would have a decision within two weeks during the court hearing last Friday.

McCleary was accused of improperly using his county car, which he used to deliver subpoenas late at night and early in the morning, among other uses.

Ron Salgado

Chief Investigator Ron Salgado previously had his case dismissed by McGraw.

The first week of June, McGraw tossed the charges against Salgado.  They alleged that Salgado cut the sentence of a “nephew” from six to four years.

Friday, it was learned that Assistant Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen knew before the charges were filed that Phil Hiscock, Chief of the Criminal Division of the State’s Attorney’s Office, made the decision.

How did McQueen know?

Hiscock told him.

This is the second case brought by Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan and Thomas McQueen that has disintegrated prior to the trial.

Charges against McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi and his assistant Joyce Synek without the defense’s having put on a case.

The court order declined to dismiss on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.  The Special Prosecutors, both of whom have filed motions to be heard Friday to be relieved of their duties, were given two weeks to file a new, presumably better indictment.

Judge Joseph McGraw's order dismissing the case against Michael McCleary.

The Judge dismissed the case because the Special Prosecutors cited a law that did not exist.

Below is what Judge Joseph McGraw ruled in the criminal trial of McHenry County State’s Attorney and his assistant Joyce Synek:

STATE OF ILLINOIS)
) SS:
COUNTY OF McHENRY)

IN THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS

THE PEOPLE OF THE )
STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
LOUIS A. BIANCHI and ) No. 10 CF 933
JOYCE C. SYNEK, ) 10 CF 934
)
Defendants. )

EXCERPT OF REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had in the above-entitled cause before the Honorable JOSEPH McGRAW, Judge of said Court, on March 23, 2011, in the afternoon session.

APPEARANCES:

MR. THOMAS K. McQUEEN and
MR. HENRY C. TONIGAN, III,
Special Prosecutors,
Appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff.

EKL WILLIAMS
BY: MR. TERRY A. EKL
Appeared on behalf of the Defendant,
Louis A. Bianchi.

DiBENEDETTO and KENDALL
BY: MR. ERNEST A. DiBENEDETTO
Appeared on behalf of the Defendant,
Joyce C. Synek.

(WHEREUPON, trial proceedings were reported but not transcribed.)

THE COURT: All right. Both defendants have filed a motion for a directed finding of not guilty at the conclusion of the State’s case.

The applicable standard in entertaining such a motion, trial court must consider the evidence adduced by the State in the light most favorable to the State when ruling on a motion for directed verdict or a motion for — the motion for not guilty at the conclusion of a bench trial.

I have considered the motions filed. I have considered the authority submitted. I have reviewed my notes. I have reviewed the exhibits that are entered into Evidence. And I find and order as follows:

As to Count I, there are defects in the pleading in Count I; specifically, it is not pled that there was an agreement. However, even not basing my ruling on the defect in the pleading, which I do find there is a defect, I do not find that there is sufficient evidence of an agreement. It is not pled,
and I do not find from the evidence that there is any direct evidence of an agreement between Defendant Bianchi and Defendant Synek.

Lou Bianchi and attorney Terry Ekl leave the courthouse after the acquittal.

I have considered the evidence to determine whether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence of an agreement. Is there sufficient evidence to inferentially establish the existence of an agreement?

I do not find that there is. The evidence merely raises a suspicion as to the existence of an agreement. The circumstantial evidence in this case does not establish nor does it exclude every other reasonable hypothesis for the actions of the — or the intent or agreement of the defendants. So, I do enter a directed finding in favor of the defendants as to Count I.

As to Count II, I do believe there is a defect in the pleading in Count II. It does not, as I believe the case law requires, indicate that the alleged official misconduct was committed by Mr. Bianchi in his official capacity. It does make reference to him being the State’s Attorney, but I do believe the authority submitted indicates that for official misconduct to be properly pled at the trial level, that it has to specifically allege that the misconduct or misdeeds were done in the official’s official capacity. That is not pled. I do find that is a defect.

Moreover, as to the theft of labor and services, the underlying offense or prohibited or forbidden conduct, I’ve examined the authority that’s been submitted, and it demonstrates to my satisfaction that anticipated labor of an employee is not the property of the employer, and, thus, diversion by a third party of the employee from his duty for his employer is not theft. But I don’t — or I should say alternatively or as an alternative to that structural defect in the charging document, I cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that there is sufficient evidence that the defendants or the employees of the Defendant, specifically, the State’s Attorneys or managers were directed to perform political duties on county time.

I find that there is insufficient evidence that they were directed or deterred or misdirected from performing their duties for the County. I don’t find that the — it was without the consent of the County. I find that the State’s Attorney had the discretion or authority to utilize his staff in a manner that he would choose, even if it was during the work hours.

He was — and I’m referring specifically to 8.1 of the electronic communications provision, Exhibit 60 — that incidental or occasional use of these systems for nonwork purposes may be permitted at the discretion of the elected official or department head of the office that the employee or other agent performs work within.

I don’t find that Mr. Bianchi directed his employees to perform the campaign-related work during County time. And if on their own initiative or through misunderstanding or misdirection they chose to perform campaign-related work while at work or with their computer, that was a matter that was within the discretion of the elected official. I do not find that was a violation of law.

I don’t find that the statutory section cited pertaining to theft of property or services is applicable to the facts of this case, so I am entering a finding against the State in favor of the Defendant as to Counts II through XX.

I find that the managers meetings took place during nonbusiness hours. And to the extent that they took place during business hours, that their purpose was of a dual nature dealing with addressing public concerns, media concerns directed against the State’s Attorney and the office of the State’s Attorney.

I do not find that services or property of McHenry County were misappropriated as far as Defendant Bianchi goes as far as Count XXVI.

Tom Carroll

I do not find that there is sufficient evidence even viewed in the light most favorable to the State that Defendant Bianchi intended to deter Tom Carroll from testifying truthfully or fully. Reasonable men can disagree about what is a political document, as evidenced by these proceedings. I do not find that his disagreement with Mr. Carroll about what Mr. Carroll
proposed to present to the Grand Jury constituted an attempt by the Defendant to deter Mr. Carroll from testifying fully and truthfully.

The reasons set forth in Count I, I find in favor of — or I should say with regard to Mr. Bianchi.

I find in favor of Ms. Synek and against the State as to Count I as it relates to Ms. Synek.

As regards counts XXI, the perjury count, again, I’ve looked at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, as I am required to do. There was no evidence that she was asked — that I could find in my notes — to do political-related correspondence on her County computer.

The question is have you been asked to do your County computer politically-related correspondence on behalf of Mr. Bianchi, and the answer is no. I couldn’t find anywhere where she was asked to do political-related correspondence on her County computer.

There is political-related correspondence I think on her County computer.

But insofar as her statement in response to the Grand Jury is alleged to be materially false, I don’t find that she was asked to do that on her County computer.

I find in favor of Ms. Synek on [Count] XXII and enter judgment of acquittal on that — XXI, on that count.

On Count XXII, the charging document alleges that and do you prepare correspondence that related — past tense — to Festa Italiana from your office in the State’s Attorney’s Office, and the answer was no. The question that was propounded contained in Exhibit 22 was and do you prepare — present tense — any correspondence that relates to Festa Italiana from your office in the State’s Attorney’s Office, and the answer was no.

Again, the questions have to be construed that — taking them as they were propounded, not past tense but present tense. So on July 2nd, 2010, when she testified before the Grand Jury, I could not find that she made a materially false statement in the present tense that she prepared or prepare in the present tense correspondence related to Festa Italiana on her office computer. I find in favor of Defendant Synek and against the State and enter judgment of acquittal as to that count.

Joyce Synek and her attorney Ernest DiBenedetto after the verdict.

As to Count XXIII, have you deleted in the last three years any documents which relate to political matters rather than the work of the State’s Attorney’s Office, and the answer was no.

I — I listened intently to Mr. Jerger’s testimony, and I did my best to follow it and to follow the exhibits that were tendered. And it appears as though there are some documents that were deleted. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, I could not find that Ms. Synek deleted those documents.

I’m not sure when — and I’m digressing somewhat — but I wasn’t sure after listening to his testimony or I wasn’t convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that — or did I think I could be based on the evidence presented — as to when the documents were created and how they were manipulated or moved or altered or overwritten during the various times they may have been accessed on the Dalby/Synek hard drive. So I cannot find that Defendant Synek is guilty of Count XXIII.

Moreover, as mentioned throughout, the ambiguity of the term political matter is subject to more than one interpretation. I cannot find she made a materially false answer to Count XXIII — or the question in Count XXIII.

Count XXIV: Have you changed your practices with respect to the drives on which you prepare documents or the locations within your computer filing system where you keep documents? Answer: No.

Again, as I’ve indicated, it was confusing listening to Mr. Jerger to ascertain when whatever was done was done, when it was changed and if it was changed, if anything had been deleted or moved or overwritten.

I don’t know what change in practices the special prosecutor was specifically referring to in that question. Accordingly, I cannot find even — I look at these questions in context. I cannot find that Mrs. Synek or Ms. Synek changed any practices about how she maintained the information on her computer.

Lastly, with regard to Count XXV as it relates to Ms. Synek, obstructing justice, as I mentioned previously, I think there is a defect in the charging document. The Court must at the trial stage look to make sure each and every element is properly pled. I do not find that the — all the elements have been pled in Count XXV — could not find an indication that the charge against her was stated that she did so with the intent to obstruct the prosecution of someone.

And I’m not going to infer or supply missing terms to a charging document.

The — As I said, even apart from the apparent defects in the charging documents, my ruling or conclusion would be the same. So each motion for each Defendant for judgments of acquittal or finding of not guilty are heard and granted in their entirety.

(WHEREUPON, further proceedings were reported but not transcribed.)

STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
COUNTY OF McHENRY )

IN THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS

I, Mary L. Krikorian, an Official Court
Reporter of the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Illinois, do
hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the
proceedings had in the above-entitled cause, and that
the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of all
the proceedings heard.

A U.S. Marshal told me he had spent three years sitting in courtrooms and never seen a directed verdict.

I’ve seen one.

It was when my 1982 Skinner for Congress campaign manager sued because I didn’t pay what he thought was owed.

We had signed a contact.

My lawyer asked him on cross examination if he had handled press releases, as the contract said he would.

He admitted that my then-wife Robin had.

The campaign manager was asked if he kept the schedule, as the contract said he would.

No, he admitted, a volunteer had done that.

After the campaign manager finished putting on his evidence, my attorney asked Judge Michael Sullivan for a directed verdict and it was granted.

That was a civil case.

McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s and his assistant Joyce Synek’s were criminal cases.

Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan and Thomas McQueen did not file adequate indictments against Bianchi and his assistant Joyce Synek.

That’s what Winnebago County Judge Joseph McGraw said again and again.

Before the directed verdict came down the defendants and their attorneys came outside the McHenry County Courthouse for a photo op. Here McHenry County State's Attorney Lou Bianchi hugs his assistant Joyce Synek. Synek's attorney Ernest DiBenedetto is seen in the background.

“There are defects in the pleading of Count 1,” Judge Joesph McGraw ruled.

“I do not find there is sufficient evidence of an agreement between Defendant Bianchi and Defendant Synek. With regard to circumstantial evidence to inferentially (conclude there was an agreement), I do not find that…merely raising the suspicion of an agreement does not exclude every other possibility.”

With regard to Count 2, McGraw said, “I do believe there is a defect in (the) pleading that allege official misconduct was committed in his official capacity. I do believe that authority (requires?) for it to be property plead that (it) has to specifically plead in the official’s official capacity. Moreover, as to the theft of labor and services, the underlying offense or forbidden conduct…and it demonstrates to my satisfaction that anticipation labor is not the property of the employer. Diversion is not theft beyond a shadow of a doubt.

“(In the) alternative to structural defect, I cannot find that there is sufficient evidence that employees of the defendant were directed to performance of duties on company time.”

These comments were made with regard to Counts 1-21 concerning Joyce Synek’s perjury charges:

“(Considering) the perjury (evidence in the) most favorable (light) to the state, as I’m (required to do), there’s no evidence she was asked to do politically-related work on a county computer.”

With regard to Count 23, “(Is there evidence she) deleted any documents in the last three years?

“No.

“I listened intently to Mr. Jerger’s (the Quest forensic computer “expert”). It appear there are some documents that have (been deleted). I could not find that Ms. Synek deleted those documents. I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to when and how they were manipulated or overridden.”

Concerning Count 24 about changing practices for location on the computer, Judge McGraw answered, “No.”

He found it “confusing listening to Mr. Jerger when whatever was done was done…I cannot find that she changed any practices.”

He went on to say with regard to the obstruction of justice charge, there was a “defect in the charging document.”

Referring to Count 15, “I do not find all the elements have been plead. I’m not going to infer or supply missing terms to the charging documents.”

In McHenry County Blog’s main story on Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan’s second indictment of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, the last count accuses Bianchi of doing a favor for his “nephew.”

That’s right, the word is in quotes.

That’s what Tonigan or his assistant Thomas McQueen wrote in the indictment.

Henry Tonigan at the press conference. Photo credit: First Electric Newspaper.

Count 4 – Official Misconduct, Class 3 Felony

Bianchi is accused of “agree(ing) to recognizance bond in a felony theft case for…John Doe #3 who Bianchi said was his ‘nephew’ and that the Assistant State’s Attorney should continue the case until a first offender program was in place in McHenry County so John Doe #3 could have the benefit of that program.” (Emphasis added.)

This morning Pete Gonigam, who somehow managed to find the press conference even though he also was not notified of it, wrote a story entitled,

“Bianchi Denies Nephew in Latest “Favors” Indictment”

In a short interview with Bianchi, the State’s Attorney said, “I don’t have a nephew that’s in any trouble.”

Lou Bianchi

I emailed Bianchi to confirm that assertion and received the following reply,

“No nephew in trouble.

“Never met this young man.

“H(is) case was right for the program.”

The program in question, of course, is the First Offender Program about which McHenry County Blog posted an article.

= = = = =
After watching politics in McHenry County since the early 1960′s, it takes a lot to stun me.

The possibility that Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan could have made a mistake of this magnitude does shock me, however. I can’t wait for the explanation to the judge in this bench trial.

Although this Official Misconduct indictment of McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Investigator Michael McCleary does not say it is a Class 3 felony, the language sounds pretty similar to that used in State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s and Chief investigator Ron Salgado’s.

Maybe you can read more into than I, but it sounds like McCleary has been indicted for using his office car for personal business.

Micheal McClearly indictment for using his county car for personal purposes. Click to enlarge.

I don’t know if this is relevant or not, but McHenry County Blog published the names of the Sheriff’s Department employees allowed to take county cars home. Most were patrol deputies, but there were others.

Here’s the list of other county employees with county vehicles they can take home.

Would anyone but I expect McCleary’s attorney to seek evidence that other county employees used their tax paid vehicles for personal use?

How about if one of more were found to have used a county vehicle for political purposes?

Nah.

That would never happen outside the State’s Attorney’s Office, would it?

Page one (Count 1) of the February 24, 2011, indictment. Click to enlarge.

Last Thursday Special State’s Attorney Henry Tonigan filed a second indictment against McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi.

Tonigan held a press conference about his grand jury’s four-day ago indictments today, but didn’t let me know it was to be held. (I assume he didn’t want me to ask questions about how much he was earning an hour, which he has thus far refused to reveal, along with submitting any itemized bills.)

Besides Bianchi, he also indicted two of his investigators, Ron Salgado and Michael McCleary. Salgado served as Bianchi’s campaign manager and the campaign manager of Tom Sanders when he ran against appointed Sheriff Keith Nygren in the late 1990′s.

Tonigan’s indictments question the discretion of Bianchi, charging him with having committed criminal acts in its exercise.

Page 2 (Count 2) of the February 24, 2011, indictment. Click to enlarge.

Here are the four counts:

Count 1 – Official Misconduct, a Class 3 Felony

Bianchi is accused of violating “Section 33-3(b) of Act 5 of Chapter 720″ by “knowingly perform(ing) acts which he knew was forbidden by law to perform in connection with the Class X felony drug prosecution…of John Doe #1…known by Bianchi to be the nephew of Ronald Salgado, Chief Investigator of the State’s Attorney’s Office…Bianchi directed an Assistant State’s Attorney to reduce (the)…negotiated sentence from five to four years which he knew to violate:

• Equal Protection rights of similarly situated defendants, Illinois Constitution 1970, Article 1, Par. 2
• 

  Page 3 (Count 3) of the February 24, 2011, indictment. Click to enlarge.

  Ethical requirements of candor to a tribunal, 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, Section 3.3(a)(1)

• Duty of a prosecutor to seek justice, 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, Section 3.8
• Ethical requirement that lawyers not engage in professional misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, Section 8.4 (a) through (c).

Count 2 indicts Ron Salgado for Class 3 Felony for communicating to as Assistant State’s Attorney as a “non-lawyer” that his “nephew(‘s)” sentence should be reduced from five to four years.

Page 4 (Count 4) of the February 24, 2011, indictment. Click to enlarge.

Count 3 – Official Misconduct, Class 3 Felony

Bianchi is accused of “direct(ing) an Assistant State’s Attorney to meet with the victim in People v. John Doe #2 and offer her an apology from John Doe #2 in return for her dismissal of the pending criminal complaint knowing that John Doe #2, his family members including his attorney had all contributed to Bianchi’s political campaign which direction he knew to violate (the same references cited in Count 1.)”

Count 4 – Official Misconduct, Class 3 Felony

Bianchi is accused of “agree(ing) to recognizance bond in a felony theft case for…John Doe #3 who Bianchi said was his ‘nephew’ and that the Assistant State’s Attorney should continue the case until a first offender program was in place in McHenry County so John Doe #3 could have the benefit of that program.”

Page 5 of the February 24, 2011, indictment contains a list of grand jury witnesses. Click to enlarge.

Violations?

Same as in Counts 1 and 5.

Witnesses who appeared before the grand jury are listed:

• Thomas J. Carroll
• Jessica Carrier
• Kirk Chzanowski
• Christopher Harmon
• William Stanton
• Kurt Maznur
• Thomas Sullivan
• Robert Seigalski
• Demitri Tsilimigras

= = = = =
When McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi held his press conference to announce the First Offender Program, he used this example:

a man who rented a car and then rented to someone else to make some money to support his family and a shoplifter who stole not too much more than the $210 that qualifies for a felony arrest.

McHenry County State's Attorney Lou Bianchi, Chief of the Criminal Division Phil Hiscock and First Offender Program Administrator Pam Van Diggelen outline the new program to reporters in the Grand Jury Room.

Could one of these cases refer to John Doe #3?

Bianchi’s attorney’s statement about the second indictment is here.

I’ll do a separate story on Michael McCleary’s indictment.

Can’t bring you the indictment(s) that was announced at a press conference that Special Prosecutor did not notify me of, but I can show you the statement that was released by McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s attorney Terry A. Ekl:

In September of 2009 Henry Tongian was appointed as a special prosecutor to investigate allegations made by a former employee of the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s office who claimed that she had done “political” work while working for the county.

Terry Ekl

This employee was charged with having stolen thousands of sensitive documents while working with the political opponent of Mr. Bianchi in his re-election bid as the State’s Attorney of McHenry County.

Mr. Tonigan was appointed solely to investigate the claim of the former employee who had left the employment of the State’s Attorney’s Office in June of 2006.

Without any notification to McHenry County, which was required to pay the costs of the special prosecutor services, Mr. Tonigan expanded the scope of his investigation of Mr. Bianchi to encompass at least a six (6) year time period and purported to allow him to investigate any “political activity” engaged in by any office employee for that time period.

The costs of this investigation had reached a figure of in excess of $200,000 as of August of 2010. For some unexplainable reason no bills for the services of the special prosecutor or anyone working with him have been submitted for work done for the past seven (7) months.

It is fair to conclude that the cost of the special prosecutor investigation has clearly exceeded $500,000 at this point.

Presently, the taxpayers of McHenry County have had no input in determining whether the bills relating to this witch hunt have been reasonable.

The expansion of the authority of the special prosecutors was accomplished in an ex parte manner between the special prosecutors and Judge Gordon Graham.

Lou Bianchi

For over one and one-half years these special prosecutors have been literally looking under rocks trying to find something they could ask the grand jury to indict Mr. Bianchi on.

They have interviewed and presented before the grand jury every person they could locate who dislikes Bianchi or has a political ax to grind against him.

In doing so they have exceeded the scope of authority provided to them as special prosecutors.

It is important to note that, unlike an elected State’s Attorney, special prosecutors are private attorneys who do not have general authority to investigate crimes.

Their authority is limited to a specific matter.

In September of 2010 Mr. Bianchi was indicted on the case which is scheduled to go to trial on March 21, 2011.

As in all cases, the grand jury process is ex parte and no representative of the target of the investigation is allowed to be present.

A motion to dismiss this indictment is currently pending which is based upon the gross and outrageous misconduct of the special prosecutors before the grand jury which returned this indictment.

This motion is based upon the special prosecutors repeatedly making false and unsworn statements of fact before the grand jury, making false statements as to the law to the grand jury and presenting testimony which they knew to be false. In essence the presentation of the current case to the grand jury was a sham.

The same grand jurors subjected to the improper conduct of the special prosecutors in the pending case returned this indictment today.

Mr. Bianchi has engaged in no wrongful, improper or criminal conduct at any time.

At all times he has exercised the discretion given to him as the elected State’s Attorney of McHenry County appropriately.

No credible evidence exists that he has ever exercised his discretion improperly.

Mr. Bianchi will be found not guilty on the initial indictment scheduled for trial on March 21, 2011 and we will then prepare for trial on this current baseless sham of an indictment which has been returned at the request of special prosecutors who are not concerned with justice or fairness but rather lining their pockets with taxpayer money.

The actions of these special prosecutors in seeking the indictment of an elected State’s Attorney because they disagree with his exercise of discretion should give pause to prosecutors everywhere who may at some point be faced with a similar malicious abuse of power.