McHenry County Blog

The following press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office should be filed under “Lawyers Behaving Badly:”

LAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY ARRESTED ON FRAUD AND OBSTRUCTION CHARGES; ALLEGEDLY BRIBED WITNESS IN PROBE OF MISUSING BANKRUPTCY CLIENTS’ CREDIT CARDS

CHICAGO — A Lake County attorney who allegedly made unauthorized cash advances and purchases on his bankruptcy clients’ credit cards for personal use and then discharged the resulting debts in his clients’ bankruptcies was arrested on federal fraud and obstruction of justice charges.

The defendant, BRADLEY F. AUBEL, a lawyer since 1997, allegedly obstructed an investigation of his activities by bribing a witness in the credit card scheme and engaged in separate fraud schemes involving an auto loan and student loans.

He was charged with one count each of mail fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice in a three-count criminal complaint that was filed in U.S. District Court and unsealed following his arrest yesterday.

Aubel, 47, of Vernon Hills, was released on a $10,000 secured bond after he appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez in U.S. District Court. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for Oct. 16.

The arrest and charges were announced today by Gary S. Shapiro, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and William C. Monroe, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Unbeknownst to Aubel, a cooperating individual (CI) who worked for him for approximately 10 years began cooperating with the FBI in the summer of 2011 and engaged in text messaging with Aubel that is detailed in the federal complaint affidavit.

A year earlier, the CI was arrested on identity theft charges in Lake County relating to the use of one of Aubel’s bankruptcy client’s credit cards.

According to the CI, Aubel regularly asked the CI to perform illegal activities on Aubel’s behalf.

According to the affidavit, Aubel suggested that the CI plead guilty to the identity theft charges and serve a sentence, during which time, Aubel would continue to pay both the CI’s salary and mortgage so that the CI would not tell law enforcement that Aubel was misusing his clients’ credit cards.

In addition to paying the CI’s mortgage, Aubel allegedly paid the CI’s sister $6,000 to leave the area and go to Mexico so she would be unavailable to talk further to the FBI or testify at any proceeding.

Separately, between June and September 2011, Aubel engaged in a fraudulent financing scheme to obtain a 2011 Honda Fit by submitting a false credit application stating that he earned $6,666 a month, supported by copies of bogus tax returns purporting to show that he earned $75,585 in 2009, and $82,330 in 2010, the charges allege.

At Aubel’s direction, the CI helped create the false tax returns to provide the Honda dealership to qualify for a loan. Aubel told the CI that he had not filed tax returns for the last several years, the complaint states.

At the same time, Aubel allegedly directed the CI to create a different set of bogus tax returns showing that he earned little income to use in asking the U.S. Department of Education to forbear on collecting more than $100,000 he owed on student loans.

Aubel submitted these phony returns — showing that he earned $8,663 in 2008, $7,578 in 2009, and $7,018 in 2010 — to the Education Department, despite the fact that he had not filed actual tax returns for any of those years, the charges allege.

Records showed that Aubel defaulted on his student loans in November 2008 and owed a total of $106,073 in principal and interest.

Mail and wire fraud each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, and restitution is mandatory. The Court may also impose a fine totaling twice the loss to the victim or twice the gain to the defendant, whichever is greater. Obstruction of justice carries a maximum penalty of five 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 government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Netols and Christopher Parente.

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

September 19th is the day that Algonquin attorney Jason Smiekel will learn his fate in his murder-for-hire scheme.

He plead guilty in mid-April.  Here’s the paperwork.

You can find his indictment here.

The affidavit that got him arrested is here.

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

FORMER CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER FOR CHICAGO-BASED INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM ARRESTED FOR ALLEGEDLY ENGAGING IN AT LEAST $850,000 FRAUDULENT BILLING SCHEME

CHICAGO — The former chief information officer of an international law firm based in Chicago was arrested today on federal charges for allegedly defrauding the firm of at least $850,000 over the last year as a result of an allegedly fraudulent billing scheme with a vendor company.

The defendant, DAVID TRESCH, allegedly approved payments to a vendor for work that had not been performed, and in turn, pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from that vendor.

As background, the charges state that Tresch obtained nearly $1.3 million in additional proceeds since approximately 2005, a year after he joined the victim firm. Also today, FBI agents seized approximately $210,000 in bank accounts controlled by Tresch, as well as a camping trailer, a van, and a luxury automobile, and agents obtained authority to seize a mobile home.

Tresch, 51, of Itasca, was charged with one count of mail fraud in a criminal complaint that was filed yesterday and unsealed today following his arrest.

He was released on a $100,000 partially-secured bond after appearing before Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier in U.S. District Court. A status hearing was set for 11:30 a.m. on Sept. 5, 2012.

The arrest and charges were announced by Gary S. Shapiro, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and William C. Monroe, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

According to the complaint affidavit, Tresch was terminated on June 28, 2012, by the victim law firm, which was not identified by name.

The firm reported his alleged criminal activity to federal authorities and cooperated in the ensuing investigation.

The firm, which has offices worldwide, hired Tresch in May 2004 as a server operations manager in its information technology department.

He was promoted in 2008 to director of global operations, and was promoted again in July 2011, to chief information officer.

The charges allege that between May 2011 and May 2012, the law firm issued checks totaling approximately $980,000 to the unnamed vendor firm, based in Schaumburg, which purported to provide personnel and technology to assist businesses with office automation, website and database development, and general information technology.

During that same time, the vendor firm issued 11 checks totaling $854,250 to Tresch, who deposited the funds into one of two personal accounts he controlled, and then used funds from those accounts to purchase and make payments on the

• mobile home,
• camper, and
• vehicles,

the charges allege.

As part of his duties, Tresch was responsible for reviewing invoices from, and authorizing payment to, the vendor firm for the services of contract employees.

Between November 2004 and March 2011, the law firm paid the vendor firm nearly $7.8 million for work purportedly performed by the vendor firm contract employees.

During that time, records showed that more than 95 percent of the vendor firm’s income came from the victim law firm, the charges state.

Between February 2005 and March 2011, the vendor firm paid Tresch nearly $1.3 million, or more than 15 percent of the money it received from the law firm, according to the affidavit.

Tresch allegedly never disclosed to the law firm that he had any financial interest in the vendor firm.

According to a law firm official, in February 2011, Tresch was directed to stop using the vendor firm’s services.

However, the vendor firm continued to submit invoices to Tresch, who allegedly continued to approve payments, knowing that the vendor firm was no longer permitted to perform work for the law firm and, in fact, had not performed any work for the law firm after March 2011.

Between May 2011 and May 2012, the $854,250 that Tresch allegedly obtained represented nearly 90 percent of the $980,000 that the victim law firm had paid to the vendor, the charges allege.

Mail fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, and restitution is mandatory. The Court may also impose a fine totaling twice the loss to the victim or twice the gain to the defendant, whichever is greater. If convicted, the Court must impose a reasonable sentence under federal statutes and the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Terra Reynolds.

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

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

ALGONQUIN ATTORNEY PLEADS GUILTY TO FEDERAL MURDER FOR HIRE CHARGE

ROCKFORD — An Algonquin, Ill., attorney pleaded guilty today to using an interstate facility, a cell phone, in a murder-for-hire scheme. In pleading guilty, JASON W. SMIEKEL, 30, of Algonquin, admitted to using his cell phone with the intent that a murder-for-hire be committed.

Smiekel faces up to 10 years of imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.

Smiekel is scheduled to be sentenced on July 17, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. by U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Kapala.

Smiekel was charged by indictment on August 16, 2011, with federal murder-for-hire charges.

In his plea agreement, Smiekel admitted that in late July 2011, he asked an individual if that individual knew someone who would commit a murder-for-hire.

The individual provided Smiekel with the first name and cellular telephone number for an ATF Special Agent acting in an undercover capacity.

On August 1, 2011, Smiekel offered to pay the undercover agent $20,000 to kill a certain person.

The next day, Smiekel used his cell phone, a facility of interstate commerce, to arrange for a meeting with the undercover agent, where Smiekel gave $1,500 in expense money and a photograph of the intended victim to the undercover agent.

On August 4, 2011, after Smiekel paid $7,000 more to the undercover agent as a partial payment for the murder, ATF agents arrested Smiekel at a restaurant in Elgin, Ill.

[See August 1, 2011, probable cause statement here.]

The plea agreement was announced today by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Andrew L. Traver, Special Agent-In- Charge of the Chicago Office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

The ATF’s Rockford office conducted the investigation, with the assistance of the Algonquin Police Department. A copy of the plea agreement will available at here.

The government was represented by Assistant United States Attorney John G. McKenzie.

in my quest to discover what’s happening on the “let’s put a branch courthouse in the population center of McHenry County,” I have received some information from 22nd Circuit Court Administrator Dan Wallis:

“The requirements that we have put together are for an area of about 6,000 square feet to accommodate the courtroom, holding area, clerks, court administration, chambers, etc.

“The largest issue is the required parking which we are estimating around 120 parking spaces or more.

“There are plenty of large buildings in the 60,000 square foot range which have ample parking or there are buildings in the 6,000 foot range which have forty parking spaces.

“It is a difficult combination to find.”

At the suggestion of a reader, I also asked about the possibility of night courts for traffic or other purposes. Wallis’ reply follows:

“There are very few night court models around the country.

“I have discussed that issue with the National Center for State Courts and was told that they work only for a very small group of case types.

“One main issue is that it isn’t just the court that is affected by a night court.

“It involves the

• attorneys,
• litigants,
• security/sheriff’s office,
• court services,
• circuit clerk’s office and
• facilities management.

Here is the paperwork for the murder for hire arrest of Algonquin lawyer Jason W. Smiekel:

= = = = =

See also Aug 11, 2011, court order about Smiekel’s being kept in jail.

= = = = =

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS )
) ss.
WESTERN DIVISION )
AFFIDAVIT

I, Sarah A. Tucker, being duly sworn, depose and state the following:

1. I am a Special Agent (“S/A”) for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), United States Department of Justice, and have been so employed since September 2003. I am currently assigned to the Rockford Satellite Office, conducting investigations involving the unlawful possession and/or sale of firearms and narcotics. My formal education includes a B.A. in Criminology received from Northern Illinois University and an M.A. in Law Enforcement and Justice Administration from Western Illinois University. I have also successfully completed the Criminal Investigator Training Program and the ATF New Professional Training Program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia.

2. This affidavit is submitted in support of the issuance of a complaint against JASON W. SMIEKEL for using an interstate commerce facility in the commission of a murder-for-hire, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958. I make this affidavit with personal knowledge based on my participation in this investigation, including

• witnesses I interviewed or which were interviewed by other law enforcement agents,
• communications with others who have personal knowledge of the events and circumstances described herein, and
• information gained through my training and experience.

The information outlined below is provided for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause and does not contain all of the details or facts relating to this investigation of which I am aware.

3. This Affidavit describes portions of recorded and unrecorded conversations. To the extent that such communications are summarized, those summaries do not necessarily refer to all of the topics covered during the conversation.

In addition, the summaries do not include every conversation made by each speaker on the topic being described. Portions of the conversations that are quoted are preliminary quotations and may be modified upon further review. For some conversations, I have offered in parentheses my understandings and/or interpretations of the conversation. My understandings and/or interpretations are based upon my experience and knowledge of the investigation to date, the content and context of the conversations, the experience of other ATF Special Agents with whom I have consulted, and my training and experience as a Special Agent.

The Cooperating Individual

4. On Saturday, July 30, 2011, ATF S/A Dan Ivancich and I met with a cooperating individual (hereafter the “CI”) who provided the following information:

a. On Wednesday, July 27th, 2011, he had been approached by an individual he knows as “Jason.” Jason drives a white Lexus and resides on Sandy Creek Drive in Algonquin, Illinois. Jason said he wanted to have an individual (hereinafter referred to as “intended victim”) murdered in order to prevent the intended victim from giving damaging testimony in a proceeding.

b. Jason is an attorney and had recently represented his girlfriend in her divorce case. Jason indicated his girlfriend’s ex-husband, the intended victim, has information about Jason that could get Jason in trouble and lead to a criminal indictment. Jason had wanted to have the intended victim killed prior to a court appearance that was scheduled to be held on Friday, July 29, 2011.

c. Jason said he previously paid two males a total of $8,000 to murder the intended victim, with the understanding that an additional $7,000 would be paid upon completion of the task. Jason indicated that the two males took off with the $8,000 and never committed the murder. Jason asked if the CI could “get it done” and Jason indicated that he was willing to pay up to $25,000 for the murder.

d. On Thursday, July 28, 2011, Jason again approached the CI.Jason asked, “What do you got for me?” and stated, “I’m willing to do the 25. What do you need?” Jason reiterated that the intended victim has evidence that would completely destroy Jason and that Jason needed something done by the following day.

The CI told Jason that nothing would happen that quickly. On Friday, July 29, 2011, Jason called the CI’s cell phone. Jason indicated that he had been able to buy himself more time in regards to the court date.

5. The CI showed S/A Ivancich and me the call log on the CI’s cellular phone and advised that Jason had used phone number (815) 909-5500 to call the CI. The CI indicated that Jason had called the CI two times on the morning of July 30, 2011, but the CI had not answered the phone. In looking at the CI’s telephone, I  observed two missed calls from (815) 909-5500 which were received at 9:26 a.m. and 10:50 a.m. on July 30, 2011.

6. The CI agreed to make a recorded phone call to Jason in order to attempt to arrange for another meeting. In the presence of agents, the CI made a recorded call to (815) 909-5500, and then indicated that the call went to voicemail.

Approximately thirty minutes later, the CI advised me that he had received a call from Jason, who had relayed that he was currently out of town but would be willing to meet the following day.

7. I conducted an inquiry of Lexis/Nexis, an informational database, and learned that JASON W. SMIEKEL was associated with the same address on Sandy Creek Drive in Algonquin, Illinois, as had been provided by the CI. A driver’s license inquiry confirmed that SMIEKEL fit the physical description provided by the CI.

When I showed the CI a photograph of JASON W. SMIEKEL that I had obtained though the driver’s license inquiry, the CI positively identified the photograph as the individual the CI knew as Jason. The CI advised that he has known Jason as an acquaintance for 4 to 5 years.

July 31, 2011 Meeting

8. On Sunday, July 31, 2011, the CI advised S/A Ivancich and me that the CI had spoken with SMIEKEL earlier that day and that the CI had asked if they could meet that evening. I looked at the call log on the CI’s phone and it indicated an outgoing call to (815) 909-550 at 11:10 a.m. and an incoming call from (815) 909-5500 at 11:16 a.m. At approximately 6:16 p.m., at my request, the CI made a recorded phone call to (815) 909-5500 and spoke with SMIEKEL. During the call, SMIEKEL said he was currently unavailable but could meet with the CI at 8:00 p.m. that evening.

Later that day, S/A Ivancich and I gave the CI with two covert recording devices to use during the meeting. We told the CI to advise SMIEKEL that the CI knew an individual named “Chris” who would be willing to complete the task (referring to the murder for hire) that SMIEKEL had discussed.

9. On the evening of July 31, 2011, the CI had a recorded meeting with SMIEKEL. After the meeting, S/A Ivancich and I met with the CI. The CI turned over the recording equipment to S/A Ivancich, and provided a piece of torn white paper with handwriting in blue ink. The CI said SMIEKEL had written the intended victim’s name on the piece of paper along with a phone number that “Chris” was to use to contact SMIEKEL.

The piece of paper contained the intended victim’s name, address in McHenry County, Illinois, and place of employment. The piece of paper also contained telephone number (213) 509-0487.

The CI said that SMIEKEL still wanted to pay someone to kill the intended victim and had written the intended victim’s name and address on the provided piece of paper.

The CI said SMIEKEL had again discussed how he had tried to have this done (via the previously mentioned unknown males) in February 2011. SMIEKEL said he wanted it completed by Friday, August 5, 2011. SMIEKEL was receptive to meeting with “Chris” and requested that “Chris” call SMIEKEL on the phone number on the piece of paper. I reviewed the recordings of the meeting between the CI and SMIEKEL. While the audio was recorded, the video did not record the meeting.

While reviewing the audio recording of the meeting, I confirmed the information provided by the CI during the debriefing.

During the meeting SMIEKEL said his last name was SMIEKEL. SMIEKEL again indicated that the intended victim was about to “ruin” SMIEKEL and that SMIEKEL had been reported to the ARDC. I know from my experience and training that ARDC is commonly used to refer to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

SMIEKEL asked about the proposed cost saying, “I need to be ready money-wise.”

10. On Monday, August 1, 2011, I conducted an online query in the McHenry County Circuit Clerk Online Public Case Access system. The system indicated that the intended victim is currently listed as a defendant in a family court matter in McHenry County. I also conducted an online query of the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission which lists SMIEKEL as a licensed attorney in the State of Illinois. However, under the heading of “Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings” was listed “none”.

August 1, 2010, ATF Undercover Meeting

11. On Monday, August 01, 2011, ATF S/A Chris Bayless, acting in an undercover capacity posing as a “hitman,” called cell phone number (213) 509-0487 and spoke with SMIEKEL. During the recorded conversation, SMIEKEL agreed to meet that evening at a restaurant on Randall Road in Elgin, Illinois. At approximately 6:50 p.m., S/A Bayless entered the parking lot at the restaurant. S/A Bayless called SMIEKEL on the cellular phone and described the type of vehicle S/A Bayless was in. Shortly thereafter, SMIEKEL walked out of a restaurant and got into S/A Bayless’s undercover car. S/A Bayless and SMIEKEL drove around. I have reviewed the video and audio recordings of the meeting and the following summarizes the meeting:

a. SMIEKEL introduced himself as “Jason” and got into S/A Bayless’s car. S/A Bayless asked SMIEKEL what he had going on. SMIEKEL said there was a guy who was causing SMIEKEL family problems and problems with his livelihood. SMIEKEL said six months ago he had foreseen troubles and had gone to someone else, but that SMIEKEL had been ripped off. S/A Bayless said that he wasn’t sure whether he wanted the job but that for the right price, anything could get taken care of.

b. SMIEKEL said he had a time problem and that the intended victim had “dirt” on SMIEKEL that could ruin SMIEKEL’S career. SMIEKEL said there was no other solution (meaning that the victim had to be killed).

SMIEKEL identified the locations of the intended victim’s place of employment
and health club. S/A Bayless said it would cost about “twenty” (meaning $20,000).

SMIEKEL discussed how he could obtain the money to pay S/A Bayless and
agreed to pay $1,500 of the fee up front. SMIEKEL described the physical
appearance of the intended victim and agreed to provide a photograph of the
intended victim to S/A Bayliss. They agreed to meet the following day at the same restaurant.

August 2, 2011 ATF Undercover Meeting

12. On August 2, 2011, at approximately 11:39 a.m., S/A Bayless received a telephone call from (213) 509-0487. S/A Bayless did not answer and the call went to voicemail. He activated a recording device and called SMIEKEL back at (213) 509-0487. SMIEKEL indicated he was running late and would be at the restaurant at approximately 12:45 p.m. At approximately 12:39 p.m., SMIEKEL used cellular number (213) 509-0487 to call S/A Bayless. During the call,
SMIEKEL indicated that he had arrived at the restaurant. S/A Bayless entered the parking lot in an undercover vehicle and parked. S/A Bayless went into the restaurant, met briefly with SMIEKEL, and they both went to S/A Bayless’s car.

The meeting was recorded both for audio and video. I have reviewed the video and audio recordings of the meeting and the following summarizes the meeting:

a. SMIEKEL had obtained a different phone and had S/A Bayless use his cell phone to call SMIEKEL’S new phone number, (818) 235-3945.

SMIEKEL gave S/A Bayless an envelope containing a small photograph of the intended victim and $1,500 in currency. S/A Bayless said he had already put “things in motion,” and that he planned on making it look like the murder stemmed from a robbery. SMIEKEL said that he would have part of the money on Friday and they discussed how SMIEKEL would later pay the remainder. S/A Bayless said that he would call SMIEKEL when “it’s done” (meaning the murder had been committed).

b. S/A Bayless said that if he got an earlier opportunity to kill the intended victim, he would take advantage of that and would call SMIEKEL after the murder.

SMIEKEL agreed to get $5,000 to pay S/A Bayless as early as the following day. Otherwise, S/A Bayless would try to kill the intended victim by Thursday and SMIEKEL agreed to try and pay S/A Bayless $10,000 right after the murder with the rest of the fee to be paid later. The meeting ended with S/A Bayless saying he would call SMIEKEL when the intended victim was dead.

August 4, 2011

13. Beginning at approximately 2:05 p.m. on August 4, 2011, S/A Bayless and SMIEKEL had a series of telephone calls with SMIEKEL using the cell phone (818) 235-3945.

During these calls, S/A Bayless asked whether SMIEKEL had the money and SMIEKEL said that he had $7,000. S/A Bayless asked whether SMIEKEL wanted to drive by the scene of the murder in order to confirm that the intended victim had died and SMIEKEL indicated that he did not want to do so.

SMIEKEL said that he trusted S/A Bayless and would provide the $7,000 up front.

They agreed to meet at the same restaurant on Randall Road at 4:30 p.m. later that
day.

14. At approximately 4:17 p.m., S/A Bayless and SMIEKEL met in a parking lot of the restaurant on Randall Road in Elgin, Illinois. SMIEKEL got into S/A Bayless’s vehicle and gave an envelope containing $7,000 in United States currency to S/A Bayless. After discussing how SMIEKEL would pay the rest of the fee for the murder, S/A Bayless gave the arrest signal and ATF special agents then arrested SMIEKEL.

Interstate Facilities

15. According to a computer search for the service providers for the cellular telephones that SMIEKEL used to call and to receive calls from S/A Bayless, telephone numbers (213) 509-0487 and (818) 235-3945, the service provider for both telephones is New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, now AT&T on the Web, an international telecommunications company. Each cellular telephone was a facility of interstate commerce.

Conclusion

16. Based on the above information, I have probable cause to believe that JASON W. SMIEKEL has utilized a facility of interstate commerce, namely a cellular telephone, with the intent that a murder be committed in violation of laws of the State of Illinois, with something of value, namely money, being received and promised to be paid in consideration for the murder, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958.
_____________________________
Sarah A. Tucker
Special Agent
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

The legal bills of Grafton Township for March and April, 2011, follow:

The analysis shows that of the$16,313.20, 82.3% was billed by Ancel Glink, the law firm representing Grafton Township’s Trustees.  The dollar amount is $13,430.05.

John Nelson, attorney for Township Supervisor Linda Moore billed $2,883.15.

This is the first negative publicity that Democratic Party State Representative Jack Franks has gotten in a long time.

And, it’s based on how much money he has taken from lawyers, lobbyists and labor unions. Yesterday, McHenry County Blog listed special interests on the 2010 Host Committee for his October fund raiser. Most of them were unions.

The group sponsoring the billboard is called “Fact Check Illinois,” heretofore unknown.

The information on the billboard comes from VoteSmart.org.

One of the way lawyers in the General Assembly make money is by attracting clients who have not only a business agenda, but a legislative agenda.

Because state law does not require attorneys to list their clients, there’s no central place to look to see if a particular lawyer-legislator is benefiting personally from his legislative position.

Now comes evidence in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from neighboring state Wisconsin that this practice actually existed in Wisconsin.

Columnist Daniel Bice writes of two admitted felons asking for rollbacks of their verdicts based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Enron Jeff Skilling “honest services” case.

That’s the case U.S. Attorneys have used to convict numerous politicians whom, it was argued, did not provide their constituents with “honest services.” The Supreme Court ruled that was not a specific enough crime, that to fit there had to be a bribe or a kickback.

Most Illinois politicians, a highly evolved species, know better than to be involved in such direct behavior. They prefer the “I’ll do a favor for you now,” “You do a favor for me down the road” approach.

Anticipation of the Supreme Court decision required a last minute re-work of the case against Rod Blagojevich.

Now Bice is telling readers that Nicholas Hurtgen, a Wisconsin political operative turned Bear Stearn biggie in Chicago is seeking to withdraw his guilty plea.

Hurtgen, of course, was involved in the Crystal Lake Mercy Hospital scandal.

But the more interesting part of the column is the information about ex-State Senator Gary George, described as the most powerful African-American politician in Wisconsin. He “pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy for accepting kickbacks of legal fees paid by an inner-city social service agency” and is now out of prison.

Now read what the man with a now-suspended law license says,

“”It is not bribery behavior under federal law to seek and receive legal work as a state legislator.”

Think that might apply to lawyer-legislators in Illinois?

= = = = =
After finishing this, I found this commentary on lawyer-legislator Abraham Lincoln on Tom Roeser’s blog:

Anyone who has deeply studied Lincoln, a political and literary genius, knows that he was a successful railroad lawyer while he was a state legislator…knows that he unfurled a map of Illinois on his desk in the House and bargained the routes of railroad lines across the state, making deals on what towns the trains would stop at…which he used to run for the U. S. Senate where he got more votes than Stephen A. Douglas (not that it did him any good as the legislatures in those days named U. S. senators and they picked Douglas).

Remember there were no serious conflict of interest laws then binding state lawmakers.

Third party candidates in American politics are famous for injecting new ideas into the governmental arena. They usually don’t get elected, but the power party candidates pick up on them and sometimes they get enacted.

Former McHenry County College Board President Scott Summers is suggesting the aging of Illinois suggests it is time to “moth ball” universities or parts of them.

He is not so crass as to make the suggestion that I would, that is, the primary purpose of most public institutions is to provide jobs, but he’s skating close to that assertion.

The following blog post by the Libertarian Party candidate for State Treasurer stimulated the Daily Herald’s story to write a story yesterday on Summer’s suggestion that it is time to close two law schools.

Summers graduated from one of the law schools he wants to close.

These are dark days for governance in Illinois.

Shrinking revenues.  Monster deficits.  Mountains of unpaid bills.    Political paralysis.

But even in these difficult times, we must pull together and plan for our future.

For perhaps the first time since the Great Depression, we face a period of contraction — not expansion — in public services.

We must be courageous enough — and shrewd enough — to plan accordingly for our state’s governance.

Apart from our dire finances — let’s begin by considering Illinois demographics with the broadest of brushstrokes.

Our statewide population is creeping up, but not by much.

Were it not for immigration, we’d be a net outflow state.

We’re also steadily graying: young adults in particular seem to be moving away.

Accordingly, consider — as the tiniest of sketches — higher education.

If the population of traditionally college-aged young people is static or even seems likely to shrink — then can we really afford all of our public universities going forward?

In other words — has the time come to (gasp!) slim down or even (gasp! gag!) mothball one or more of our universities?

There’s a subset to this, too.

Can we continue to afford some of the programs our universities offer?

For example, we have three public law schools

• University of Illinois (U of I),
• Southern Illinois University (SIU), and
• Northern Illinois University (NIU).

And we have a glut of unemployed lawyers.

Has the time finally come to slim down to just U of I for public law?

(Full disclosure: I’m an NIU law graduate. And I remain very grateful for the tip-top legal education I received there. Personally, I’d hate to see the place close. But I’m counting beans today, not wallowing in sentiment.)

Ditto medical schools.

• U of I has four campuses and additional satellites.
• SIU has two campuses.

They do wonderful work.

They are cherished assets of their host communities. But — but — but — can we afford them all?

So how do we make these horribly difficult — and, I freely admit, politically dead-on-arrival (at least for the present) — public policy choices?

We have to develop assessment and implementation mechanisms where we carefully evaluate our public needs — and then collectively/figuratively hold hands and jump.

Remember the military base closure commissions?

The Pentagon has gone through several iterations with these.

The blue ribbon types come in and do the meticulous analysis, and then Congress goes with a straight up-or-down vote on a recommended list.

There is anguish,
there is pain,
there is inequity,
there is dysfunction,
there is dislocation,
there is wailing,
there is gnashing of teeth —
but the bases get closed in stages, and life goes on.

So back to the higher ed example.

The General Assembly establishes something akin to a base closure commission.

There’s analysis. There are hearings. A set of recommendations is presented. And ideally (ideally!) the members of the General Assembly hold hands and jump — excruciatingly painful as that surely will be.

I could go on with other examples — but you get my drift.

Yes, the time has come. Call it — “Rightsizing Illinois”.

Our political leaders — and yes, we Illinoisans — need to team up and get it done.