McHenry County Blog

It’s hard to get dumped on more than Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan and Thomas McQueen was by Winnebago County Judge Joseph McGraw.

Three days before McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s lawyer Terry Ekl’s was scheduled to go before Judge Gordon Graham, acting on behalf of six Bianchi supporters, to ask for Tonigan’s and McQueen’s dismissal, basically for incompetence, Tonigan asked permission to withdraw due to his father’s health problems.

The high-billing Thomas McQueen, apparently taking it for granted that Judge Gordon Graham will let Tonigan out of the case Thursday morning, filed a motion on April 26th asking for McGraw to recuse himself based on, at minimum, an appearance of impropriety.

The source of the information behind this motion?

Would you believe a blog?

A new one called McHenry Leaks, whose first post was Saturday, April 16th.

The information on the blog represents significant research into nooks and crannies of the legal infrastructure which it is hard to believe were not found by an attorney.

There is no name attached to the blog.

So, with someone else doing the research, McQueen is trying to intimidate Judge McGraw to withdraw from the case.

The blog cites McGraw’s income disclosure form from 2010 which shows he must also file with the “States Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor.”

It appears that McGraw was paid $3,125 for being an instructor at a seminar in October, 2010. He spoke the first day, October 25th, at the end of the day on the subject of “Pre-Trial Motions” and was paid $625 a day for the five-day seminar.

The records posted show he had been a paid instructor going back to 2007.

McQueen notes that McHenry County Assistant State’s Attorney Michael “Mich” Combs was also a panel member at the October conference. Combs was in the Winnebago County Public Defender’s and State’s Attorney’s Offices before coming to McHenry County.

McQueen admits he does not know what relationship the two had.

Bianchi, however, has recently names Combs as a witness in his criminal case, McQueen reveals.

McQueen next notes that the Special Prosecutor for the Amy Dalby case, was David O’Connor and O’Connor was on the faculty and was “Training Director” for the Appellate Prosecutor’s Office.

Publicist Dan Curry, McQueen notes, is also on contract with the same agency. Curry has provided public relations services to Bianchi and Ekl.

Not stating the amount of money that McHenry County pays the Appellate Proseccutor’s Office to do what McQueen and Tonigan have billed over $300,000 for, McQueen characterizes it as “a significant amount.”

I’ve heard the figure McHenry County pays the Appellate Prosecutor’s Office is $30,000 a year.

With a motion by Terry Ekl to dismiss him and his assistant Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen from his task of knocking McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi out of office pending, former Judge Henry Tonigan is pleading family obligations as his reason to withdraw from his lucrative assignment.

In a motion filed Monday, April 25th, Tonigan says that his 86-year old father has an unnamed medical condition that requires his attention, that his sister can’t help has her own serious medical problems and has moved from his abode to California.

Tonigan proposes that assistant Thomas McQueen take over the role of Special Prosecutor.

The hearing is set for Thursday, April 28th at 10 AM, the same time that Ekl’s voluminous motion to dismiss both prosecuting attorneys is to be heard.

Tonigan and McQueen put on such a poor case against Bianchi and his assistant Joyce Synek that Rockford Judge Joseph McGraw dismissed the case on a motion for a directed verdict before the defense had put on any evidence.

In view of the recent acquittals of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi and Joyce Synek on charges of having used the office for political purposes, I thought readers might be interested in this stepping over the line in Will County.

The Will County Board member in question is Kathleen Konicki, a Republican from Homer Glen first elected in 1996. She is also an attorney and told the paper she has no private email address.

Her email opposed the election of Jim Daley, the mayor of Homer Glen.

The issue addressed was the culling of deer in Homer Glen’s Messenger Woods.
Konicki opposes it; the mayor did not.

The article points to this portion of Illinois’ 1970 Constitution’s Article VIII, section 1(a):

“Public funds, property or credit shall be used only for public purposes.”

The article says the State’s Attorney’s Office sent the email in question and others to the Attorney General for review.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The politically motivated trial of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi and his assistant Joyce Synek ended in an acquittal for each on all counts.

Judge Joseph McGraw, brought in from Winnebago County to try the case, issued the half-hour oral decision Wednesday afternoon after hearing two and a half days of evidence presented by Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan and his assistant Thomas McQueen.

McGraw approved a motion for a verdict of not guilty before any evidence was offered by Bianchi defense attorney Terry Ekl.

Ekl offered a detailed motion for a directed verdict, contending that the indictment by the Special Prosecutor was severely flawed and the evidence presented inadequate.

After a 130 minute lunch break, McGraw found Bianchi not guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and official misconduct related to charges that he used the State’s Attorney’s Office for political purposes.

His assistant was found not guilty of similar charges, as well as having perjured herself in Grand Jury testimony.

Bianchi did not get off without a lecture from the judge, however.

The judge noted that the Special Prosecutor was “looking for a bright line between political and non-political (work) in the office.

“I do agree with the standard of absolute separation of political duties and official duties,” McGraw said looking at Bianchi, who was sitting at the defense table in front of him.

“You have to be extremely cautious. You as State’s Attorney are vested with such authority and discretion.  (It is) paramount that the public has absolute confidence (in your office).  (You must be) above reproach.

Presumably referring to the use of office personnel to respond to a December 2007 campaign attack from Sheriff Keith Nygren-backed Dan Regna. as well as staff preparation of Bianchi for editorial interviews with the Northwest and Daily Heralds, McGraw said,

“I do not think the State’s Attorney should be hamstrung from being able to defend his office, even if it is during an election.”

The Rockford jurist did call for more scrutiny to prevent political activities in the office.

“How you do your duties must be above reproach. What you do must not contain a hint of impropriety. Strenuous efforts must be made by you to (avoid impropriety).

“I agree with Mr. Tonigan and Mr. McQueen that there should be a bright line between political official (duties). I cannot condone any (misuse of office resources).

“However,” McGraw concluded, “evidence does not demonstrate any crimes have been committed on all criminal counts,” as he dismissed the Special Prosecutor’s case.

During the morning, Nichole Owens, former Chief of the Criminal Division, testified that she helped in Bianchi’s 2008 campaign for re-election, but did her work at home.

Asked why, she worked for Bianchi, she agreed with Ekl on cross examination that she did so because she wanted to.

“I was appalled at some of the case dispositions that took place under the prior administration of Gary Pack.”

At this point Tonigan objected, but was overruled by the Judge.

Asked if she worked eight hours the days of Management Team meetings, usually, but not always held at lunch time, Owens responded, “I worked more than eight hours every day.”

Owens was also asked Synek’s role in the campaign.

“She would prepare baked goods for the fund raisers.”

= = = = =
Some background that might be of interest:

Republicans at War – A Re-Run

On April 1st, Associate Judge Thomas Meyer will hear Sheriff Keith Nygren’s primary opponent Zane Seipler’s motion that Nygren used his office for political purposes. Bianchi has written that he will not do such an investigation.

Here are some tea leaves from the last hearing of the request for a Special Prosecutor.

2 PM – In the criminal trial of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi and his secretary Joyce Synek, Winnebago County Circuit Court Judge Joesph McGraw is considering whether to dismiss charges against the two.

He recessed his court hearing at one, telling those present he would be back at three with a decision on the motion filed by defense attorney Terry Ekl.

With former Criminal Division Chief Nichole Owens to go as Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan’s final witness, McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s criminal defense lawyer Terry Ekl is so unimpressed with the case put on against his client that he intends to file for a directed verdict.

That means Ekl believes that the prosecution has put on such a poor case that no defense witnesses are needed.

Tonigan assistant Thomas McQueen spent most of the morning presenting Quest International computer forensics expert Dan Jerger with copies of printouts for identification.

The documents had been obtained from computers in the State’s Attorney’s Office.

The $250 an hour expert identified documents with the following titles or subject matters, among others:

• Fiesta Check List on Day of Event
• Fiesta Check List
• Public Announcement
• Correspondence on the letterhead of Louis Bianchi, Republican for McHenry County State’s Attorney
• Mailing labels
• Dear Supporter Letters
• Committeemen Envelopes (142 labels)
• Dear Committee Letter
• Fellow Republican
• Republicans on a spreadsheet
• Vrett Party spreadsheet
• Late Thanks Festa
• New List 2006-2007 spreadsheet
• Festa Final Final spreadsheet
• Bill%Franz%20Reception
• New List 2006-2007 spreadsheet
• Rabine
• 2005 Plates
• Festa List 2006
• Festa List 2006 spreadsheet
• Mailing List Bianchi
• FWDRE Invite List
• Announcement…..
• Bianchi Announcement 2007 Final
• Support File – Koehler
• Support – Plaze
• Support File – Donner-Merkel- Hill-Wheeler
• Franks Support
• Supporters
• Sign Locations
• 2007 Election
• Sample Letter
• Meeting 5-17
• Letter to Committeemen
• Letter to Supporters
• Dear Committeemen
• DR Packet (Letter from Danial J. Regna)
• Smith-Brent
• Dear Festa Sponsor (on Louis Bianchi for McHenry County State’s Attorney letterhead)

Of these the expert said 100 were created on August 8, 2007.

70 were created within a seven-second time period on August 8, 2007.

Jerger said a number “had the file property of being hidden.”

Next came four emails from Joyce Synek and five for Bianchi.

One, a “contact list.” was sent to Bianchi and Bianchi’s campaign manger, Nancy Prioletti, from Synek, he said.

On cross examination, Jerger could not estimate how many emails he went through to find the nine presented as evidence.

“I was not directed to.”

“Did you just put search terms in?”

That was apparently the case.

Ekl asked if he had a report of his activities. None that had not been presented by McQueen seemed forthcoming.

There were notes, however, that Ekl did not receive in a timely fashion.

They were subpoenaed in early December and did not show up until March 15th.

This disturbed Ekl to the point where he asked Judge McGraw to strike Jerger’s entire testimony.

The Judge was disturbed enough to ask McQueen, “Had you asked for handwritten notes?” He decided he wanted to hear the President of Quest Robert A. Scigalski, who sat in the courtroom both Monday and Tuesday.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a tap dance (about court ordered production),” Ekl said after the prosecution’s explanation of why Jerger’s notes didn’t get handed over until last week.

Ekl finally got Jerger to agree there were probably more than 100,000 documents on Synek’s hard drive.

Jerger wouldn’t venture a guess as to how many files the disk contained.

“I do not have the number of files that were on that,” he said.

Neither did he have an estimate as to how many were on Karen Rhodes’ 80 GB hard disk.

Jerger had no idea how many hours he has worked on the project.

Ekl pointed out the billing said 345.

“I wouldn’t be surprised,” Jerger observed.

At $250 an hour, Ekl calculated he had charged the county $86,250.

That’s when he revealed the total Quest bill as $225,000.

Questioning continued with Ekl trying to get Jerger to admit that the 100 files found on Synek’s computer dated August 8, 2008, were probably the result of their being downloaded onto the computer.

I didn’t hear real solid agreement.

This was part of an attempt by Ekl to show that file creation dates might not mean what a layman would think they would.

About the best that Ekl could get in way of agreement to his interpretation of the data was

“(There’s) no indication that it wouldn’t be what you’re suggesting.”

Ekl asked if evidence was discovered to show that Synek’s “computer was infested with viruses.”

Jerger said he didn’t recall.

Ekl: “You didn’t know as of August 20th that in the first part of July it was infested?”

“No, to my recollection, I didn’t learn that,” Jerger said.

Ekl thought that was significant because “when you run an anti-virus software there’s movement of a lot of files and lots of files are lost.”

Some get put “into a quarantine so it (the virus) can no longer harm the computer,” Ekl explained.

While Ekl seemed certain that Jerger had been informed by a member of the McHenry County IT Department, Jerger wasn’t, even after looking at his handwritten notes.

Asked if any of those who had used Synek’s computer had password protection, Jerger said they didn’t.

In addition to computerized data, 726 paper documents were taken from Synek’s office and 3,000 from Karen Rhodes.

During the lunch break Ekl explained to reporters,

“They can’t establish that any document was typed up on a county computer.”

Concerning the “hidden” files, they have fifty hard copies that they took out of her (Synek’s) office.

“Virus removal causes files to be deleted.

“There’s no evidence that any files were deleted after the subpoenas were issued.”

After lunch, Karen Rhodes, who had been given immunity from prosecution at both the Grand Jury and this trial testified.

She explained how the campaign documents that were on her computer and the few political emails got there.

Rhodes said she created and maintained all of the campaign financial records on her laptop at home, but didn’t trust it and copied the records onto the office computer for backup purposes.

She said an email to her office email address from a campaign web site host should have been sent to her home email address and, when the first one came to the office, she told the vendor.

If you will pardon a characterization, I thought Tom Carroll–without a grant of immunity–revealed more damaging information about use of the office for campaign purposes Monday than Rhodes did with one.

Rhodes said after the Amy Dalby investigation she “was more vocal about” use of the office for campaign purposes. “I was upset after the Dalby investigation started.”

Asked about backing up the campaign finance records on the office computer, Rhodes said, “He (Bianchi) had not idea I had done it.”

Ekl went through Prosecution Exhibit after Prosecution Exhibit eliciting explanations of how they got on the office computer.

When he finished, he said,

“We will have a motion for a directed finding.”

After the lunch break Rhodes, who had been given immunity from prosecution to testify took the stand.

McHenry County Blog posted the entire indictment of McHenry County State’s Attorney here.

There is one charge of “conspiracy,” one charge of “unlawful communication with a witness” (Tom Carroll) and nineteen for “official misconduct.”

Most of the guts of it, however, is contained under the heading “Conspiracy.”

• Bianchi is charged with using “personnel, equipment and McHenry County funds for political purposes included, but not limited to,
• ordering and purchasing campaign items,
• drafting political correspondence, political memoranda, political announcements, political invitations, political address lists, political speeches and media election inquiry responses

by State’s Attorney’s Office employees during public working hours on County property.

• Bianchi is also charged with causing fellow defendant Joyce Synek and others “to use County property to
• prepare for,
• organize and track fundraising invitations,
• send fundraising thank you correspondence,
• maintain memoranda of campaign endorsements,
• distribute campaign petitions and petition circulation instructions,
• revise and maintain political address contact lists,
• maintain lists of campaign volunteer workers,
• maintain lists of campaign sign locations, and
• maintain records of fundraising for Bianchi’s annual August political fundraiser ‘Fiesta Italiana’ for each of the years 2005 through 2010.”

From 2005 through July, 2006, Bianchi is accused to causing his secretary, Amy Dalby, to type, revise and maintain

• political memoranda
• political correspondence and
• address lists

on her County computer.

The State’s Attorney is charged with allowing staff members “to leave their County offices during public working hours to attend Campaign Committee Meetings in Crystal Lake, ‘Fiesta Italian’ fundraisers at various locations and other political functions.”

The conspiracy count says Bianchi awarded “compensatory time and a half for marching in public parades during 2006 and for participating in community expos from 2006 through 2010 where both legitimate community awareness and political campaign purposes were undertaken by the participants.”

Office manager meetings were used “for both legitimate State’s Attorney’s work and to discuss and make decisions to benefit and manage his political position and campaign needs.”

Though not mentioned by name, 2008 Bianchi primary opponent Dan Regna’s demand for “a separation of public from political work by State’s Attorney’s employees, the conspirators on August 8, 2007, caused electronic political files on the Dalby/Synek County computer to be moved to a ‘JAS’ folder in a hidden computer folder.”  Regna also is the one who asked for a special prosecutor to be named.

Finally, both Bianchi and Synek are charged with “misrepresent(ing), conceal(ing) and hid(ing) and caus(ing) to be misrepresented, concealed and hidden, the acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy and the purposes of those acts.”

Synek is charged with four counts of perjury, basically, not telling the truth to the grand jury and one count of obstruction of justice for having “knowingly destroyed, altered, concealed and disguised physical evidence, or caused said destruction, alteration, concealment and disguise of the ‘Buddy’ folder of electronic documents maintained on her State’s Attorney’s Office County computer.”

When asked for his comment, Dalby’s attorney Wes Pribla said,

“It appears that Amy Dalby did what she should have done and the good thing about our legal system is that Mr. Bianchi will have the opportunity to be tried before twelve of his peers to determine his guilt or innocence.”

If you want to know what’s happening politically, I would suggest reading

Republicans at War

For information about the Fiesta Italiana look here and here.

The list of grand jury witnesses are here.

The next payment to Special Prosecutor Skip Tonigan and consultants can be found here.