McHenry County Blog

Subscribe

Archive for the ‘Lou Bianchi’

Ninety Attend State’s Attorney’s Ethics Seminar for Public Officials

May 04, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Donna Kelly, Ethics, Jana Blake, Lou Bianchi, Matt Rogina, McHenry County State's Attorney

About ninety public officials and citizens attended McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s Ethics Seminar Thursday night at McHenry County College.

The State's Attorney's Ethics Seminar.

The State’s Attorney’s Ethics Seminar.

Speakers and their topis were

  • Matt Rogina from the Attorney General’s office spoke on the Illinois Freedom of Information Act
  • Jana Blake from the State’s Attorney’s office spoke on Open Meetings
  • Donna Kelly from the State’s Attorney’s office spoke on the Illinois Public Officials Prohibited Activities Act.

McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Plan for Election Day

April 08, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Donna Kelly, Election Day, Lou Bianchi, McHenry County State's Attorney

Donna Kelly

Donna Kelly

I ask McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi what his office was going to do on Election Day.  Here’s the answer:

“Donna Kelly, Chief of our Civil Division is available throughout the day to handle calls from any precinct, citizen and from oue County Clerk.

“We also have 5 teams (of 2)  that will be traveling and visiting precincts from 8:15 until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow and  can assist in handling any complaints.

“We have three investigators available to respond to calls.”

The number to call is 815.334.4159.

Tax Fighters Chris Jenner & Erik Sivertsen Stay on the Ballot for McHenry County College Board

March 18, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Ballot Access, Bob Wagner, Brandy Quance, Chris Jenner, Erik Sivertsen, Lake County Clerk, Lou Bianchi, McHenry County College, McHenry County College Board, McHenry County State's Attorney, Thomas Meyer, Willard Helander

Chris Jenner fighting Cary's Tax Increment Financing District.

Chris Jenner fighting Cary’s Tax Increment Financing District.

Whoever convinced the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office to try to knock two anti-tax candidates off the April 9th McHenry County College ballot didn’t have a good day.

Or, to put it in Cary School Board member Chris Jenner’s words, “two weeks ago today was the first candidates’ forum and newspaper interviews began [shortly thereafter].

“This is a way you can get two anti-tax guys off the ballot.”

A suit contending Jenner and Erik Sivertsen should be thrown off the ballot because the offices of grade school board and junior college were incompatible was brought on an emergency basis last Wednesday by the State’s Attorney.

But on Thursday morning, Judge Meyer learned the deadline was not that day, but Monday, for the ballots to be printed.

So he allowed briefs to be filed (read Jenner’s by attorney Bob Wagner here) and read them, the law and an Attorney General’s Opinion before coming to his courtroom Monday afternoon.

Toward the end of the session, the Judge dropped a hint of his conclusion when Assistant State’s Attorney Brandy Quance mentioned that the question had been brought up by “the Lake County Clerk [Willard R. Helander].  She’s an attorney.  They are off the ballot in Lake County.”

“Be that as it may, one of us is wrong,” Judge Thomas Meyer observed.

The Assistant State’s Attorney argued in her brief that service on grade school boards and a junior college board were incompatible.

But Meyer’s first words may have also hinted at his leanings.

“I guess I’m not sure why there is incompatibility.”

Quance argued that legislative history and construction should be taken into account, but Judge Meyer pointed out that what is in the law today “doesn’t apply to where a person is running for both [offices]…”

“I don’t see that as necessarily applying to this particular suit.”

“I agree that having one person running for both [offices]…is something the statute probably intended to address, but I don’t see it.

Quance argued that “without putting some meaning to the statute we wouldn’t need it.”

Judge Meyer agreed that was “a reasonable question.”

Bob Wagner, Jenner’s attorney, got his chance next.

He argued that the legislature had said, “Hey, we want qualified people to run for the school board,” that it was “encouraging people to run.”

He noted the one exception was that “if you are a sitting member of the junior college board, you can’t run for school board.”

He then referred to Quance’s desire to consider “construction.”

Wagner, Bob looking leftHe zeroed in on the use of the words “eligibility” and “compatibility.”

“If it’s incompatible, one can’t serve even one day,” Wagner asserted.

“Here we have a statute [one saying that a grade school board member elected to a junior college board could serve out his term] that says they are not incompatible.”

“The fact that we are here cries to the ambiguity of the statute.”

Wagner argued use of “a plain, common sense reading…to accept any other interpretation would be to deny the broad interpretation of ballot access.

“The public policy favors the right of people to vote, the right of people to run for office.”

Quance pointed out that voters would not have the right to select their grade school member either if a person running for both grade school board and junior college won the school board spot and then resigned.

“If [one] can’t serve in two offices, then you’re unable to run [for them],” Quance said.

“He’s [Jenner's] already indicated a desired to withdraw [from the Cary Grade School Board ballot],” the Judge interjected.

“He already has–last week,” Wagner informed the Court.

To Quance, the Judge said, “Your problem is his running for election to the school board at the same time he’s running for college board.”

“He would not be able to hold both offices at the same time,” Quance replied.

“What I see she’s saying is that he might be elected, not that he’s on the board,” Wagner said.

“At the time of filing he was not a sitting [junior college] board member, so he has every right to run.  The Supreme Court says you can’t look at a future event.”

“That’s not what I read this to be,” Quance replied.  “He’s not eligible for election to the community college [board].”

Judge Meyer agreed with Wagner’s “contention with events that have not taken place.

“It doesn’t say a person who is a member of common school board may not run [for community college board].

“If he were elected to the Board of Trustees, he would not be eligible for the grade school [board]“, Quance continued.

“I agree it sets up an odd situation, but I can’t manufacture a solution that the legislature didn’t [enact],” the Judge said.

“I would have to be convinced  that this statute serves as a bar.”

“There wouldn’t be a need for the statute, if they were compatible,” Quance replied.

“They are not inherently incompatible,” the Judge replied.

“I think a plain reading of the statute supports Mr. Jenner’s position,” Judge Meyer concluded.

“I guess I’m surprised [at the imprecision of the legislative language].

“It’s not my job to tell them to write better law…

“The statute tells me that they are not incompatible.

“I can’t agree with your argument that the two offices are incompatible.”

Erik Sivertsen

Erik Sivertsen

Sivertsen was asked if had anything to add and he quoted something I didn’t catch to which Judge Meyer replied, “A valid point.”

“I’m going to deny the request and let them stay on the ballot.”

Quance asked for a ruling that the two offices were compatible, but the Judge demurred, limiting his decision to the ballot access question.

Reactions?

Sivertsen:  “That’s the outcome I expected after reading the statute and the Attorney General’s opinion.”

Jensen:  “I’m pleased we can now focus on the main issue of this campaign, which is the attempt by the current McHenry County College Board to rob taxpayers of their right to a vote on being saddled with $45 million of bond debt through their property taxes.”

Chris Jenner’s Legal Brief in State’s Attorney’s Effort to Toss Him and Eric Sivertsen Off the MCC Ballot

March 15, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Ballot Access, Ballot Challenge, Bob Wagner, Chris Jenner, Erik Sivertsen, Lou Bianchi, McHenry County College, McHenry County College Board, McHenry County State's Attorney

It’s going to be a dreary Saturday, so perhaps readers would like to read the legal brief filed by attorney Bob Wagner on behalf of McHenry County College Board candidate Chris Jenner.  It is below.

J 1J 2J 3J 4J 5J 6J 7J 8J 9j 10

Who’s Afraid of Chris Jenner?

March 15, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Chris Jenner, Eric Sivertsen, Lou Bianchi, McHenry County College, McHenry County College Board

Chris Jenner fighting Cary's Tax Increment Financing District.

Chris Jenner fighting Cary’s Tax Increment Financing District.

Pursuant to a complaint from a person unknown, Lou Bianchi’s McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office is trying to kick two McHenry County College candidates off the ballot

They are Cary Grade School Board member Chris Jenner, who was seeking re-election, plus running for the McHenry County College Board, and EriK Sivertsen, who is running for both the McHenry Grade School District Board and the MCC Board.

Erik Sivertsen

Erik Sivertsen

Jenner is in his second two-year term on the District 26 Board and has taken part in the downsizing necessitated by teacher contracts which paid excessive salaries and benefits.

Sivertsen is a Young Republican who has firsthand experience at MCC as a student.

There are nine running for three vacancies on the MCC Board.  Below they are listed in alphabetical order.

  • Scott Alford
  • Chris Jenner
  • Carol Larson
  • Erik Sivertsen
  • Mike Smith
  • Molly Walsh
  • Arne Waltmire
  • Tom Wilbeck

Bianchi filed suit based on a 1993 Attorney General’s decision that held service on a grade school and a junior college board simultaneously was incompatible.

Sivertsen told me that as he read the opinion, serving on both boards at the same time was not allowed, but he pointed out there was nothing in the opinion about running for both boards.

Following advice of a top State’s Attorney assistant, Jenner on Monday asked District 26 to de-certify his candidacy.  The district did so.

The suit was filed anyway.

A hearing will be held in Judge Thomas Meyer’s courtroom on Monday afternoon, the deadline for finalizing ballots.

Perhaps you would like to play detective.

Read the following statements made by Chris Jenner at the MCC candidates night last week.

Any of the candidates would benefit from having fewer candidates on the ballot.

The questions I pose is “Whose candidacy is threatened most by Chris Jenner’s being on the ballot?  Who or whose supporters would have wanted him off the ballot enough to file a complaint with the State’s Attorney’s Office?”

Opening Statement at MCC Candidates’ Forum

My name is Chris Jenner. I’ve lived in Cary for the past 20 years. My main qualification to serve in this office is my accomplishments in nearly 8 years of service on the Cary D-26 school board.

Last summer, someone asked me if I knew what was going on with the management of my local community college. Over the next several months I found a number of things that seemed wrong to me.

  • A budget that forgot McHenry County is under the tax cap, with no apparent consequences or discipline for the mistake, and a proposal to make up the shortfall through a tuition hike instead of dipping into the
    college’s healthy cash reserves.
  • 22,000 taxpayer dollars spent to send 5 trustees, 2 administrators, and the student trustee to Boston to stay in $319 a night hotel rooms and eat lobster dinners.
  • Use of a so-called consultant with an obvious conflict of interest to justify a $45 million health sciences facility and health club.
  • A plan to issue $45 million in debt without asking for permission from the voters.

These are all symptoms. The root cause of these problems is that for years, the MCC board has been dominated by insiders, by people with
ties to the college, by advocates of big government, and long term incumbents. The field of candidates this year includes several insiders and long term incumbents.

Yes, the trustees do advocate for the college. If elected, I will advocate for the college. I will also advocate for the taxpayers, students, and local businesses, which seem to be taking a back seat to the effort to expand the college’s facilities. I will also vote against the college incurring debt or even putting the taxpayers at risk without asking the voters’ permission through the use of double barreled bonds or a backdoor referendum.

Closing Statement at MCC Candidates’ Forum

Thank you League of Women Voters and the other groups for hosting this important forum. I’d like to highlight and expand on a few points I made in my opening statement.

A health sciences facility and lab and classroom expansion may be warranted, but not nearly to the extent that is being proposed. A fitness center certainly is not needed — McHenry County already has 20, many of which are struggling. The proposal on the table nearly doubles MCC’s existing classroom and lab space, when the existing space is
less than 50% utilized. In difficult economic times, utilization of public resources needs to go up, not down.

Trying to portray a health club management firm that could become a financial partner in the project as an “independent expert” to perform a feasibility study is blatantly wrong. Power Wellness lacks expertise in the breadth of the project being proposed, and is certainly not independent.

An opinion of an independent expert is what the law requires to issue Alternative Revenue Bonds. Ask the residents of Lakewood whose property taxes jumped to pay for Red Tail Golf Course whether Alternative Revenue Bonds put the taxpayers at risk. A public entity issuing debt without asking the voters is wrong, as evidenced by recent legislation filed specifically due to how MCC has proposed to fund the expansion.

As I mentioned at the opening, the root cause of MCC’s management problems is domination of the board by insiders and long term incumbents beholden to the college. If elected, I will bring an outside, independent voice that will advocate not just for the sake of the college, but for our students, local businesses, and taxpayers. I will not vote for the college to incur millions of dollars of debt without asking your opinion at the ballot box first.

I’ll close by discussing policy, which is supposed to guide and govern the board and administration in decision making. In all 8 years that I’ve been on the D-26 school board, I have been on the Policy Committee, being the chair for 6 of those 8 years. I’ve authored several good governance policies, which the D-26 board unanimously passed.
I’ve reviewed the MCC policy manual and I find it lacking in good governance policies. If elected, I will bring good governance policies for the MCC board to consider, including the one we adopted in D-26 several years ago that forbids the district from issuing debt without voter approval.

= = = = =

McHenry County Blog’s article about the MCC candidates’ night can be found here.

Bianchi Judge Refuses to Step Down in McQueen-Quest Contempt Effort, Ekl Limits Penalty to $500 or Six Months in Jail

March 13, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Lou Bianchi, McHenry County State's Attorney, Patrick Hannretty, Robert Scigalski, Terry Ekl, Thomas McQueen

Joseph McGraw

Joseph McGraw

The Judge who twice dismissed criminal charges against McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi says he will decide whether Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen and his Quest investigators have committee contempt of court.

Lawyers for McQueen and Quest employees Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty argued that Winnebago County Judge Joseph McGraw should disqualify himself.

McGraw rejected their arguments, saying that he bore “no malice nor ill will against” McQueen or the Quest investigators whom Bianchi seeks to have held in contempt of court.

He also said he had no knowledge of the case and the disputed facts outside of what he learned in the courtroom during the trial.

Challenged on whether there would be the appearance of impropriety if he ruled on attorney Terry Ekl’s motion, Judge McGraw dismissed suggestions that Quest’s having asked about his

  • financials
  • personal information
  • current and prior residences
  • driver’s record
  • family information
  • etc.

would prejudice his decision on the contempt motion.

Before he became a judge, he said “I knew my life would be subject to a [degree] of public scrutiny.  I don’t think a reasonable person would question the impartiality of the Court.”

After recusal and a change of judge was rejected and over objections that a Special Prosecutor or the State’s Attorney should prosecute the case and that Ekl might use the case to “leverage Bianchi’s Federal civil rights case, the Judge appointed Bianchi attorney Terry Elk to prosecute the case.

“I think it would just hinder the administration of justice to put it [the case] to another attorney,” McGraw said.

Ekl said he would serve without compensation and would not use the contempt case in the Federal litigation.

Lou Bianchi attorney Terry Ekl addresses press conference as Bianchi and his wife Jean stand by his side.

Lou Bianchi attorney Terry Ekl addresses press conference as Lou Bianchi and his wife Jean stand by his side after the second court victory.

“In no way have I sought or will seek a settlement [in the Federal case],” Ekl said.  “If I would have wanted to do that, I would have done it before I filed this case.

“I think I’m the person best suited to try this case.”

Referring to the Federal case, McGraw observed, “This Court is a stranger to those proceedings, happily so.”

Ekl immediately told the judge that the maximum penalty he would see was a maximum of a $500 fine and/or six months in jail.

Under the rules in place, that would preclude the possibility of a jury trial.

It would be a bench trial.

Judge McGraw said he would take that as “a binding commitment.”

Ekl proposed “full due process rights” for those he would be prosecuting.

“The whole nine yards,” Judge McGraw emphasized, “as if going to a criminal case.”

Discussing what he was ready to provide the defense attorneys, Ekl said, “Part of the problem in the criminal cases was, ‘Here’s the haystack, where’s the needle?’”

He told of 18,000 pages of emails, “thousands and thousands and thousands of pages are irrelevant in this case.

“We’ll work with you (the defense attorneys) to get you all the relevant documents.”

After the hearing, I asked Ekl if he would seek more discovery.

“I don’t need anymore,” he replied.  He also mentioned that the defendants had “Fifth Amendment rights now.”

Asked if he had a comment, Bianchi replied, “No.”

He was smiling.

 

Bianchi Agues that Judge Should not Replace Joseph McGraw in Contempt of Court Motion Against McQueen & Quest

March 07, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Contempt of Court, Lou Bianchi, McHenry County State's Attorney, Patrik Hanretty, Robert Scigalski, Special Prosecutor, Terry Ekl, Thomas McQueen

Terry Ekl, attorney for vindicated McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, argues in filing below against Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen’s motion that another judge should not replace trial Judge Joseph McGraw when his contempt of court motion is considered. You can read McQueen’s argument here.

B sub 1B sub 2B sub 3B sub 4B sub 5B sub 6B sub 7B sub 8B sub 9

Lou Bianchi’s Attorney Replies to Request that Contempt of Court Judge Recuse Himself

March 07, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Lou Bianchi, McHenry County State's Attorney, Patrick Hannretty, Quest Consultants, Quest Consultants International, Robert Scigalski

Terry Ekl, the attorney for McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, has filed the following in reply to a motion by Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hannretty Quest Consultants International for Judge Joseph McGraw.
B recusal 1B recusal 2B recusal 3B recusal 4

Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen Asks for New Judge for Contempt of Court Motion

March 06, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Contempt of Court, Joseph McGraw, Lou Bianchi, McHenry County State's Attorney, Special Prosecutor, Thomas McQueen

Here is what Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen has filed in the contempt of court action sought by McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, the man he indicted, but could not convict on criminal charges.
McQ sub 1McQ sub 2McQ sub 3McQ sub 4McQ sub 5McQ sub 6

Quest Asks Judge Joseph McGraw to Recuse Himself from Lou Bianchi Contempt Effort

March 06, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Joseph McGraw, Lou Bianchi, McHenry County State's Attorney, Patrick Hanretty, Quest Consultants, Quest Consultants International, Recusal, Robert Scigalski, Robert Webber, Special Prosecutor, Terry Ekl, Thomas McQueen

The following is the court filing by Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty of Quest Consultants International asking that Judge Joseph McGraw recuse himself in McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s attempt to have the two and Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen held in contempt of court.

Bianchi Contempt top of case
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE

NOW COME the Defendants, ROBERT SCIGALSKI and PATRICK HANRETTY, by and through their attorneys, J. STEVEN BECKETT and ROGER B. WEBBER of BECKETT & WEBBER, P.C., and present the following Memorandum in support of their Motion for Reousal.

BACKGROUND

On or about January 10, 2013 , Plaintiff, Louis A. Bianchi, filed a Petition for Adjudication of Criminal Contempt against Defendants Thomas K. McQueen, Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty. All of the allegations in the Petition stem ůom an investigation and prosecution of Plaintiff, Bianchi which came about as follows. On September 18, 2009, McHenry County Circuit Judge Gordon Graham appointed Henry C. Tonigan as a special state’s attorney and Defendant McQueen was appointed to “assist” to conduct an investigation in McHenry County. McHenry County State’s Attorney, Louis Bianchi, Plaintiff herein, had an interest in the Subject matter and was therefor conflicted. (Petition paragraph and Exhibit A., Hereinafter Pet. par. 1, Ex. A).

Quest Consultants International Limited (Hereinafter Quest) and several of its employees including defendants, Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty were retained by Tonigan and McQueen as special investigators and appointed by Judge Graham as agents and investigators to a special grand jury. (Pet, par. 3, EX. B.) That grand jury returned indictments against Plaintiff Bianchi, although he Was subsequently acquitted. This Petition has evolved out of that With respect to defendants, Scigalski and Hanretty, the Petition alleges infer alia that:

A. The Quest Investigators conducted a background check on Judge Joseph G. McGraw to reveal sensitive financial and personal information regarding Judge McGraw and his family members, including current and former residences, Vehicle registration information and real property ownership and loan information [Pet., pp. 8-9, par. 5(a), Ex.KK] and

B. Defendants Scigalskí and McQueen manufactured a “leak” concerning an article entitled, “Bianchï’s Judge received payments from ILSAAP,” for the purpose of making a baseless personal attack on Judge McGraw. [Pet p9, par. 5/cf).]

STANDARDS FOR RECUSAL

Supreme Court Rule 63(C)(1)(a), (188 Ill. 2d R. 63(C)(l)(a) provides in relevant part:

“(l) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding[.]” 188 111.2d R. 63 (C)(1)(a).

“Rule 63 requires a judge to rceuse himself When his participation might reasonably give rise to questions regarding his impartiality, including situations involving the appearance of impropriety.” People v. Buck, 361 App.3d 923, 931, 297 lll. Dee. 700, 707, 838 NE2d 187, 194 (2d Dist. 2005).

Generally, a judge Should recuse himself ůom a contempt hearing if he has become “personally embroiled” such that heis “unfit to Sit in judgment on the contempt charge.” Mavberrv v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 465, 9l S. Ct. 499, 505, 27 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1971).

“The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit set forth a test for determining an appearance of partiality, in PeDSico. Inc. V. McMillen. 764 F.2d 458, 460 (7th Cir.1985): Whether an objective, disinterested observer fully informed ofthe relevant facts would entertain a significant doubt that the judge in question was impartial.” Leavell v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 397

Analysis

McGraw, Joseph, JudgeIn the instant case, the allegations of contemptuous conduct on the part of Scigalski and Hanretty have necessarily embroiled the judge personally into the controversy. Itis alleged that, “Quest employees conducted a background cheek on Judge Joseph G. McGraw, to reveal sensitive financial and personal information regarding Judge McGraw and his family members, including current and former residences, Vehicle registration information and real property ownership and loan information.” (Emphasis added) pp. 8-9, par. 5(a), Ex. KIQ.

It is no surprise and not likely to influence a judge, even on a subconscious level, to learn that litigants before that judge “investigated” the judge. One of the fundamental principles of public speaking is to “know your audience.” In that Way litigants can be expected to attempt to learn as much as possible about the judge assigned to hear their case as possible; particularly in tenns of any tendencies of their rulings, expectations of procedure etc.

It is much more unexpected that such an investigation would include family members of the judge and go beyond his “judicial persona” delving into purely private matters. In that situation it is quite reasonable to expect that, at best, the judge will be unappreciative of the invasion and at worst, be down right insulted, offended or incensed and looking for retribution..

The other allegation (concerning the Quest employees) is an accusation that Defendants Scigalski and McQueen manufactured a “leak” concerning an article entitled, “Bianchi’s Judge received payments from ILSAAP,” for the purpose of making a baseless personal attack on Judge McGraw. (Pet. p. 9, par. (D.) This allegation unquestionably raises the significant risk that an objective, disinterested observer fullly informed of the relevant facts would entertain a significant doubt that the judge in question was impartial.

This allegation puts the court between a rock and a hard place. Ruling against the defendants creates the risk that an objective observer could believe that the decision was influenced by a desire to punish those accused of investigating too deeply into the judge’s background or of manufacturing a “baseless personal attack.” On the other hand, ruling in favor of the defendants could cause that sarne observer to wonder if the court bent over backwards to avoid the appearance of the ­former.

­The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized the necessity of the contempt power, to protect the administration of justice and dignity of the courts, as indispensable. Yet, it has also emphasized the delicate nature of its proper exercise in order to avoid arbitrary or oppressive conclusions. In Maybe@ the Court said, “This rule of caution is more mandatory Where the contempt charged has in it an element of personal attack or criticism of the judge. The judge must banish the slightest personal impulse to reprisal, but he should not bend backward, and injure the authority of the court by too great leniency.” Maybe@ v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 464, 91 S. Ct. 499, 504, 27 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1971).

For all of the reasons stated above this Honorable Court should recuse itself from these proceedings and re-assign it to another Judge or refer it to the Illinois Supreme Court for re-assignment.

ROGER B. WEBBER, 6184986
BECKETT & WEBBER, P.C.
508 S. Broadway
Urbana, IL 61803-7160