McHenry County Blog

Robert Bush

Robert Bush was in Judge Michael Caldwell’s courtroom today representing the Grafton Township Trustees. None of the Trustees were present.

Supervisor Linda Moore was accompanied by her attorney, John Nelson.

Before the judge came in, there was some exchanging of paperwork, which I misunderstood.

I thought Bush was withdrawing from the case, but, no, it was Nelson who was had agreed to withdraw the petition that was on the docket.

“It makes it easy for me,” Bush observed.

“This case is over except for the appeal, some of which is OK, some of which isn’t”

When informed of the change in plans, which freed up two hours in Judge Caldwell’s schedule, he said, “OK.”

And out the door the attorneys and Moore went.

Moore’s attorney Nelson provided the following commentary:

John Nelson

“They did pay the auditor’s bill and I’m going to consider that an olive branch and see if I can work with attorney Bush to see if we can resolve the issued that have boiled over during this term.

“Supervisor Moore is willing to make one last attempt to resolve matters short of all-out litigation.”

When asked if mediator Rob Hanlon would be assisting, the answer was, “No.”

“I’m going to try to work directly with attorney Bush. He was instrumental in getting the auditor’s bill [paid] for the first year.

“If efforts at reconciliation are unsuccessful, we still have plenty of time to litigate matters enforcing the court order before Judge Caldwell.

“My client would like to see an end to the lawyers’ never ending legal bills in this case.

“We are putting the ball into the Trustees court on that matter.”

As I was leaving volunteer mediator Rob Hanlon was conferring with Nelson to find three dates that could be offered to Township Assessor Bill Ottley’s attorney Mike Poper at one of which a compromise between Ottley and Moore would be sought.

After Rose Seipler and her attorney Dennis Giovannini left the courtroom, Rose’s former attorney, John Nelson, continued his testimony in the sanctions part of her husband Zane Seipler’s case.

McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren’s attorneys James Sotos and Elizabeth Ekl are trying to get Federal Judge Frederick Kapala to dismiss Zane’s wrongful termination suit on the grounds that he disobeyed the court order to keep Sheriff’s Department disciplinary records secret.

Previously, Zane had testified that his wife Rose posted them.

The question to which Rose had not objected to former attorney John Nelson’s answering was “What did she tell you?”

John Nelson

“Mrs. Seipler came in and indicated there was an issue in her husband’s case which had to do with the posting of materials that have court restricts,” Nelson explained.

“Her husband was asking her to sign an affidavit to that effect.

“I said I didn’t want to know.

“I told the consequences [and] issues of knowledge of the court order.

“I discussed why it was anyone would do a foolish thing like that.

“At the end of the conversation, I advised her it would be best if she maintained a silence in the matter”

Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwtiz asked why Nelson didn’t want to know whether Rose had posted the material.

Nelson replied  that there were “potential problems if she had told me she had done that.”

Blake Horwitz

“Why not ask her to tell the truth?” Horwitz continued.

“My approach is more oriented toward the criminal aspect.  I know from personal experience civil lawyers are more intimatedly involved with their clients than criminal attorneys.”

Ekl objected to the second part of Nelson’s answer, pointing out that he had not been qualified as an expert.

Kapala overruled the objection.

“Why?” Horwitz  then asked.

“If it were to be that Mrs. Seipler would need my services in the future I did not want to be pinned in.

“What could happen to me and my family if I had done this?” Rose apparently had asked Nelson.

“I attempted to answer as well as I could the potentially worst case scenario.

“I also want[ed] to make sure should it come to pass that she undertook a path that would have legal repercussions by myself or with another attorney.

“She [todl me] I have this problem and this problem and this is the nature of the problem.

“I indicated very early on that I didn’t need to know.

“It seemed to me that she wanted good, sound legal advise.  She’s a professional, a registered nurse.

“Your average criminal client [would] have learned that’s the way it is done,” Nelson said, continuing to explain how he handle criminal cases.

“As the conversation unfolded, early on [I figured out what the issue was].

“She was interested in the potential ramifications.

“You don’t need to tell me that you did or did not do it,” Nelson remembered telling Rose.

“We’ll find the issues.

“If she were going to sign an affidavit I would be prepared to prepare it and it would certainly cost her extra money.

“The cornerstone of a state and Federal practice is that your client is presumed not guilty.  In the early stages of a criminal case, I don’t necessarily have to know the culpability.

“We live in a fluid world and things can change,” concluded Nelson’s answer.

“[So you said] ‘Stop right there.  Don’t tell me anymore,” Horwitz said.

“I would do that because I would like to research spousal immunity.

“The Fifth Amendment privilege is certainly more than ethics,” Nelson asked in response to a question from Horwitz I did not catch, but probably related to Horwitz having advised Rose about self-incrimination at her deposition in this case.

I did write down the follow-up inquiry:  “Is it appropriate to say, ‘Stop right there because there might be Fifth Amendment problems?”

“Yes,” Nelson said.

It appears that the Sotos team now got in some questions.

“Her husband wanted her to sign an affidavit?”

“The way I recall it she had been asked to sign an affidavit and she wanted to know the consequences,” Nelson replied.

“If not by her husband, then who?”

“I presume it was the husband or the husband’s interest.”

Frederick Kapala

At this point Judge Kapala asked Horwitz how many more witnesses he had.

Horwitz came up with the following six:

• Dennis Giovannini
• Jim Sotos
• Blake Horwitz
• Rose Seipler
• Zane Seipler
• Scott Milliman

“Obviously we need another day,” the Judge concluded and then asked some questions of his own.

The final installment is tomorrow.

= = = = =
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

Blake Horwitz

The testimony of Rose Seipler attorney John Nelson moved next to his questioning by Keith Nygren attorney James Sotos’ associate Elizabeth Ekl.

She asked if it Zane Seipler attorney would have acted unethically, if he has represented both Zane and his wife in his wife’s deposition.

“I’m unsure,” Nelson replied. “It would be unethical if there were a known conflict.”

Nelson said his first representation was in October, 2010.

“[Would it have been] inappropriate for Mr. Horwitz to file a response in her behalf?

Judge Frederick Kapala’s ears picked up on the inference and he asked,

“Did he?”

“I believe he did,” Ekl replied.

“I have no interest,” Nelson said. “I have not interest in waiting hours to be called. I have no stake in this game.”

Ekl pointed to Document Exhibit 114, a filing on Rose Seipler’s behalf.

[At that point, I wrote, "Gotcha," on my legal paid.]

Nelson explained that the date of the Horwitz filing was “one or two days after I filed my motion. It should have been captioned, ‘Now comes Mr. Seipler,” not ‘Mrs. Seipler.’”

Ekl pointed out this was the second time Horwitz represented Mrs. Seipler [the first being the deposition].

“Anything unethical for him to serve you a subpoena for her deposition?” Ekl asked.

“No.”

My notes of who was asking questions at this point is a bit ambiguous, but I think the following identifications were put into the record by Ekl:

• October 17 memo filed by Nelson – Doc 103.
• October 18 memo filed by Horwitz – Doc 104.

Now, I have an “H” referring to Horwitz in the margin.

He asks about the facts in the two petitions.

“You incorporated very similar facts in your supplemental brief,” Nelson observed.

Horwitz points to page 45, line 6 [in the Rose Seipler deposition, I think], referring to Sotos associate Liz Barton mentioning the existence of a conflict.

Asking Nelson if he has a recollection after reading the reference elicited this comment from Judge Kapala:

“I don’t think he has any recollection of the deposition because he wasn’t there.”

One from the Sotos team objects suggesting, “Why not admit the deposition?”

Horwitz wasn’t ready to do that without reviewing the deposition with reference to what effect its being in the record might have on others parts of the case.

“He’s not going to testify to anything other than what he read in the deposition,” Judge Kapala observed.

At this point Horwitz went back to the hearsay objection that was upheld.  He referenced some “prior consistent statement” exception.

“I will do it up with her testimony,” he said.

“The defense is trying to allege collusion,” Horwitz said right before Sotos said, “They put this whole thing together after [the sanctions motion].”

“Did I ask you for information about what she (Rose Seipler) said?” Horwitz inquired.

“Yes,” Nelson replied.

“For my part I told you Mrs. Seipler wouldn’t be speaking to anyone.”

At this point, Nelson apparently realized he had misspoken on something, but my notes don’t indicate what.

John Nelson

He did, however, come up with two classics:

• “It was probably age and infirmity.
• “It’s much more difficult to be a witness than standing out there.”

At this point Rose Seipler and her current attorney Dennis Giovannnini re-entered the courtroom.

“Did it come time for Mrs. Seipler to have a conversation?”

The date referenced was October 26, 2011.

“What did she tell you?” Horwitz asked.

“No objection,” Giovannnini said.

“Step out, please,” Judge Kapala said.

More tomorrow.

= = = =
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

Keith Nygren

Zane Seipler

This is the third installment of how Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz is defending against a motion for sanctions that, if granted, would end the wrongful termination suit that the now-reinstated Deputy has filed against McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren and others in the Department.

The subject moved from conflict of interest to spousal immunity.

Rose Seipler’s former attorney, John Nelson, is still on the stand.

Nelson won a motion previously in the case on that subject matter.

He there is “a certain immunity from disclosure.”

“It is an issue that attorney’s must tread very carefully with.”

“I represented Mrs. Seipler in a deposition. When did I stop [representing her]?” Horwitz asked.

“My memory was that you didn’t represent her in the deposition, just suggested to her she could assert her Fifth Amendment privilege.”

John Nelson

Nelson then explained that most clients think a lawyer who has previously represented them are their “attorney for life.

“You have to tell them when they may need other counsel.

“They don’t understand legal matt4ers.

“They trust you in matters of legal guidance.”

Horwitz pointed out that attorneys “also have to avoid the appearance of impropriety.”

“We have the responsibility to do the right thing,” Nelson said for the second time in the hearing.

“If I had called you, would you have told me what she (Rose Seipler) said?” Horwitz asked.

“No,” was Nelson’s immediate reply.

Horwitz asked when he and Nelson had met.

“Two or three court appearances ago” was the answer.

“Did she pay you?” Horwitz asked.

“She paid that day.”

“First time, too?”

“Yes. Retainer and paid a final bill.”

Horwitz then asked if there “came a time when Ms. Seipler told you about posting articles on the internet.”

An objection was made by Elizabeth Ekl, which Judge Frederick Kapala upheld.

At that point it was Nygren attorney James Sotos’ turn to question Nelson.

More tomorrow.

= = = = =
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

This is Part 2 of Rockford attorney John Nelson’s testimony in the Zane Seipler wrongful termination case against Sheriff Keith Nygren, et al.

It is from the santions motion part of the trial before Judge Frederick Kapala.

John Nelson

“Your question involves the essence for her [Rose Seipler's] visiting me for the second time,” Nelson replied.

“There were consequences to signing an affidavit for use in her husband’s case with regard to posting privileged materials in this case on the internet where there was some court restriction,” Nelson testified.

“Certainly there was not only tension, but there was a legal conflict [and] marital [conflict].

“The legal conflict was Mrs. Seipler needed legal representation to represent her interests.”

“Did you know of the allegations of perjury [in the James Sotos motion for sanctions (see below)]?” Horwitz asked.

“I did not know that,” Nelson relied.

“If I had gone and spoken to Mrs. Seipler and asked her everything that happened and she developed that and I had presented that [information] to the court [as Sotos had argued earlier in the day that Horwitz should have]?”

“The ethical problems always come after the fact,” Nelson commented.

“[You would have3] placed her in legal jeopardy.”

“What would you tell her?” Horwitz asked.

“I would have told her you shouldn’t have done that.  We would be a position to attack any [use of information in any further proceeding.  That would be the danger," was Nelson's reply.

An objection was made with regard to relevancy.

Judge Kapala dismissed the objection:

"The question has been raised why he didn't investigate this [whether Rose put the secret documents on the internet].  I think he’s trying to explain why he didn’t do it.

“I will allow the witness to continue to testify.”

Nelson continued: “I certainly would have written a letter to the ARDC [Attorney's Registration and Disciplinary Commission].

“You and I might also have had a talk.”

Another objection interrupted the proceedings to which Judge Kapala asked that “a firmer context” be laid out.

And another objection to Mrs. Seipler, a future witness, being in the courtroom was sustained:

“I agree she shouldn’t be here while you [lay out] your theory of the case.”

“I understand the issue,” Horwitz said.

Rose and her current attorney Dennis Giovannnini then left the room.

The objected to question was then read by the court reporter. I caught only a snippet about “Did you put this up on the internet?” [From the context below, I believe Horwitz was quoting what he heard Zane say to his wife over the phone during the two's heated August conversation.]

Horwitz then laid the following out hypothetical situation:

Blake Horwitz

“A couple of months before Mrs. Seipler came to you for the second time (in August), she overhears this and says, ‘I did it. I put the stuff up over the internet.’”She speaks to me and says she’ll testify and wants to get a lawyer. She’s upset, emotional.

“Then a motion for sanctions is filed with [asking for] dismissal and referral to the Federal prosecutor [for criminal charges].

“Should I have inquired, ‘What happened?’”

Nelson’s reply:

“No.

“Anytime you have the possibility of Federal criminal exposure all you can do is suggest counsel.

“She needed to be advised by an attorney.”

“Did I have her duty [best interest] at heart?” Horwitz continued.

“No, you could not do justice for your client by having any interest in her interests.”

Frederick Kapala

An objection was made to the hypothetical.

“These are things you can bring up on cross,” Judge Kapala replied.

“You certainly had the obligation to tell Ms. Seipler to get an attorney, [to] tell her you were not going to talk to her, to get a lawyer,” Nelson continued.

“I think the rules encompass that lawyers do the right thing.

“It would be improper to take advantage to advance your own case,” Nelson said.

Horwitz moved onto the subject of spousal immunity.

More tomorrow.

= = = = =
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

The only places to park near the Rockford Federal Courthouse only allow parking for two hours.

I spent the day in Rockford’s new Federal Courthouse.

Good looking building, completed by the General Services Administration only about a year and a half behind schedule with the last repair being the installation of a new air conditioner on the new roof, according to the guards the last time around.

The big problem with the facility is there is no place for court parking.

The next door garage is being repaired. So, if you don’t have a permit, forget it.

One used to be able to park there for the day for well under $10.

There are all sorts of two-hour parking spaces.

So, what do you do when you’re in the courtroom of a conscientious Judge like Frederick Kapala?

He doesn’t give attorneys and spectators a break every two hours to go move cars from one space to another space.

He keeps right on working.

After the hearing, I was told by Rockford attorney John Nelson that the parking fine is $20.

He pointed out that by Chicago standards that might not sound outrageous, but it is considered so in Rockford.

So what does the title of this article mean?

There were two witnesses Tuesday in Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s wrongful termination suit.

The first was Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz.

He was on the stand three-fourths of the day being grilled by James Sotos and Horwitz associate Dan Dorfman.

Rockford Attorney John Nelson was on the receiving end of questions Tuesday.

The second was Nelson, who has twice acted as Rose Seipler’s attorney in this case.

The testimony of those two got us past 5PM, when the parking spaces are not limited to two hour shifts.

I managed to get through the day without a parking ticket.

Nelson had been waiting twelve hours to testify as questioning of Zane Seipler dragged on and on and on and on.

He finally got his chance today, but there are six more witnesses scheduled by Blake Horwitz for the next hearing at the end of August:

1. Scott Milliman (who has also been waiting outside the courtroom for five court days)
2. James Sotos (Sheriff Keith Nygren’s Department’s chief defense attorney)
3. Blake Horwitz (Zane Seipler’s attorney)
4. Zane Seipler
5. Rose Seipler
6. Dennis Giovanni (Rose Seipler’s current attorney)

If you are intrigued with attorney-client privilege, legal ethics, conflict of interest, timelines of what an attorney knew when, computer addresses of blogs, etc., this courtroom was for you.

After Nelson finished testifying, he told me that by being in Rockford in the morning I had missed Judge Thomas Meyer’s ordering all the attorneys in the Grafton Township Assessor v. Supervisor Linda Moore case be paid.

Those will include Nelson, Mike Poper and Ancel Glink for the Trustees, the latter at the suggestion of Judge Meyer.

Zane Seipler

Tuesday Sheriff Deputy Zane Seipler’s wrongful termination case is back in Rockford Federal Court.

Seipler’s wife Rose is expected to testify about her posting information about disciplinary records on the internet.

But, she has been cooling her heels outside the courtroom waiting to do that for 2-3 days already and the attorneys seem to fill the time with endless questions, primarily of her husband.

Also waiting to testify are

• Scott Milliman, the Deputy fired by McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren after Nygren read his accusatory deposition in this Seipler case, and
• John Nelson, attorney for Mrs. Seipler for a time in this case.

Milliman’s deposition was leaked to the Northwest Herald, but no penalty is being considered for that indiscretion.

Meanwhile, the legal bills continue to mount, although not for McHenry County.

The County has an agreement with a risk management agency that limited legal fees to $100,000 for the year Seipler filed his case.

Nevertheless, the attorney’s representing the Sheriff’s Department continue to be paid well.

Through June, the fees paid are as follows:

• James G. Sotos – $815,571.13
• Ottosen, Britz, Kelly, Cooper – $39,439.87
• Caldwell, Berner and Caldwell – $25,901.10

The grand total before today’s billings?

$880,911.

The Sotos bills for June, when there was a day in court, have not been tallied.

A press release from Grafton Supervisor Linda Moore:

GRAFTON TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES ADDICTED TO LEGAL FEES

Grafton Township Trustees Gerry McMahon, Betty Zirk, Rob LaPorta and Barbara Murphy.

Supervisor Linda Moore said today that the Grafton Township Trustees,

• Rob LaPorta
• Betty Zirk
• Barbara Murphy
• Gerald McMahon

appear to be addicted to spending taxpayer monies for legal fees.

Supervisor Moore clarified there is only one lawsuit pending between her and the trustees.

That lawsuit started when Moore was unlawfully evicted from her township office while the township board tried to usurp her duties by the unlawful appointment of a town administrator, Pam Fender.

Those problems were aggravated by the failure of Attorney Keri Lynn Krafthefer to leave when Supervisor Moore fired her.

Judge Michael Caldwell ruled in Moore’s favor on all of those issues.

The total cost of the litigation to date is $400,426.00.

Of that amount, $347,194.28 was paid to the trustees’ attorneys and $53,231.72 was paid to Supervisor Moore’s attorney.

Linda Moore

“Why are they appealing every order Judge Caldwell entered against them?” Supervisor Moore asked.

The attorneys’ fees on appeal will be astronomical.

Moore clarified that her current petition and motion are filed in the existing lawsuit and are directed at further attempts by the trustees to do her job.

“Keep in mind,” Moore said, “…the trustees have filed these same kinds of motions against me in the case already.

“The fees in these straight forward requests will be much more reasonable than the trustee’s appeal,” Moore added.

“I am raising issues that the cancelling of a township credit card has no basis other than harassment,” Moore opined.

“You only need to watch one of our meetings online to get a flavor of the abuse I receive at the hands of the trustees.

“Why else do they refuse to pay for the Huntley Police to be there?” Moore asked.

“They say I am too tough and unbending,“ Moore said.

“My answer is that I stopped the waste of taxpayer’s monies of $5 million plus, for an unnecessary new town hall.

“If I was not this tough, Trustee Gerry McMahon’s screaming and the board’s monkey shines would have driven me from office long ago.

“I am not going anywhere.”

Bill Ottley

Linda Moore

There were two cases involving Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore in Woodstock this morning.

Not much happened in either except setting new court appearance dates.

In one, Moore was seeking sanctions (a contempt of court ruling) against the four Trustees who lost their attempt to usurp the power of the Chief Executive Officer in a lengthy trial before Judge Michael Caldwell.  (See articles about the decision:  Part 1 & Part 2.)

John Nelson continues to represent Moore, while Ancel Glink’s Thomas DiCianni continues to represent Trustees Betty Zirk, Rob LaPorta, Barbara Murphy and Gerry McMahon.

Actions after that decision by the four from the Township’s legislative branch to limit Moore’s executive power led to attempt to gain punishment from the Court.

In Judge Thomas Meyer’s courtroom, Assessor Bill Ottley was suing Moore to get her to pay bills to remodel his office.  As I understand Moore’s position, she is arguing that Ottley is trying to string out various aspects of the project to avoid going out for bid.

The case was originally before Judge Caldwell, but Ottley attorney Mike Poper successfully moved for a change of venue, that is, another judge to hear the case.

Nelson represents Moore in the Assessor’s case.

Today Grafton Supervisor Linda Moore’s husband David Moore is in criminal court on October, 2010, battery charges.

Trustee Gerry McMahon points at David Moore while he is taping the meeting.

Concurrently, Moore’s attorney John Nelson in the Separation of Powers case she won is asking for indirect criminal contempt findings against Trustees Rob LaPorta, Betty Zirk, Barb Murphy and Gerry McMahon.

Up to six months behind bars or a fine is requested, the paperwork says.

Here’s the part of Judge Michael Caldwell’s court order which Moore contends that the Trustees violated:

The issue is about the use of a Township credit card that was in existence prior to Moore’s taking office.

The Township Trustees voted not to pay bills incurred through use of the credit card and to cancel the card.

Also bought up was the Trustees’ voting for Moore to return a sound system bought for use at the Annual Town Meeting and at bi-monthly bingo games.

Read the text comparing Moore’s actions to the $53 million embezzlement in Dixon, Illinois:

“Deliberately and willfully violating the terms of this Court’s injunction” are the “red meat” words on the page.