McHenry County Blog

Lou Bianchi

Wednesday afternoon, Associate Judge Thomas Meyer heard testimony from McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi about the “conflict of interest” that Bianchi sees in representing Sheriff Keith Nygren in some seven suits and preparing 4-5 opinions and at the same time investigating, indicting and prosecuting him.

Bianchi based his position on the Rules of Conduct for Illinois attorneys, which basically says that an attorney can’t both defend and prosecute a client.

With little variation, that was the State’s Attorney refrain throughout the afternoon court session.

When asked whether specific criminal allegations, e.g., use of taxpayer dollars to use a 7-pointed star for political purposes or the more general use of public funds to promote his political career, would result in action on his part against the Sheriff, Bianchi’s repeated reply was.

• “I will not” and
• “It would be unethical to do so.”

There were variations on those answers, but all had the same meaning:

Bianchi will not investigate Sheriff because it would be an ethical lapse that would put his law license in jeopardy.

Five specific situations beyond the use of public money to affix a star that seemingly started out as a campaign symbol were presented by Horwitz to Bianchi for a reply as to whether he would investigate them, if allegations were brought to his office:

1. 

   Blake Horwitz

   The illegal transportation of Hispanics from Mexico to McHenry County

2. Solicitation of murder of Judge [Conrad] Floeter
3. Solicitation of murder of David Bachmann
4. Conspiracy with Jose Rivera in the generation of fraudulent loan documents
5. Causing dismissal of criminal allegations brought against drivers who were driving vehicles in McHenry County

At one point during the hearing, Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz said,

“Then the Sheriff gets a free ride by virtue of his position.”

Judge Meyer seemed to make it clear that the 7-pointed star issue was what was under consideration and not the other issues that Horwitz advanced.

As Horwitz said, “I think I’m done,” Bianchi broke out in a broad smile.

When Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell got his turn, he seemed to be trying to show the Judge that Bianchi made a conscious choice not to initiate any criminal probe of Nygren.

It is obvious that State’s Attorneys have great discretionary power. Perhaps, Caldwell was trying to emphasize that fact.

Consider this question and answer:

Caldwell: “You are able to pass your preferences as it concerns Mr. Seipler’s petition?

Bianchi: “I never looked at the merits. The question came and I couldn’t do it.”

After the attorneys finished their cases in the 27-month trial, Judge Meyer said, “I’m going to do some of my own research.”

He seemed to think he might be able to do in a short period of time and render a decision later in the afternoon, but after 15-20 minutes he returned to his courtroom and announced he had no decision.

Judge Meyer set the next court date for April 25th, the same day as he will handle Horwitz’ request for sanctions against Nygren’s personal attorney Mark Gummerson.

Neither principal were in attendance. Nygren sent his new Affirmative Action Officer Don Leist, who moved over from the State’s Attorney’s Office. Seipler has friends but, apparently, was on the job he regained after a long, drawn-out challenge by Nygren to an arbitrator’s decision re-instating him as a Deputy Sheriff.

Below is some of the evidence relating to the morphing of the 7-pointed star from a campaign symbol to a logo for the Sheriff’s Department:

Here is the evidence that Judge Thomas Meyer did not consider necessary to examine because the investigation thereof should be done by a prosecutor. Click to enlarge.

Silly me.

I thought that the over two-year journey to see whether Associate Judge Thomas Meyer would appoint a Special Prosecutor to look into allegations of wrong-doing by McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren would be over today.

Instead Meyer dismissed all the motions before him, including the first, short one filed by Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell which asked the Judge to make a decision on whether a Special Prosecutor should be appointed, considering it was in his discretion.

Lou Bianchi

After clearing the decks of the tortuously argued motions, the Judge set a trial for April 25, 2012, at 10 AM.  [Gus Philpott notes that the evidence will be take at 1:30 that afternoon.]

At that trial McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi may be on the stand.

That apparently would not be necessary if Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz had been willing to stipulate to the contents on the deposition which Horwitz, Nygren’s personal attorney Mark Gummerson, and Caldwell conducted.

Nygren is no longer a party to the case.

Apparently in questioning of Bianchi, Horwitz will be able to ask about Bianchi’s availability to prosecute specifically named crimes, solicitation to murder seeming to be the most serious.

But Judge Meyer stressed, “I’m not going to take evidence on specific crimes.”

Caldwell mentioned a letter that Horwitz had written.

“His letter may well add context to specific (allegations),” Judge Meyer replied.

Before orally denying all the motions, Meyer said, “I need that testimony,” adding later, “The only was to resolve this is witness testimony.”

Prior to adjourning, Judge Meyer entered into the record an encounter he had with Nygren “on official business” in a private judicial corridor.  Something about “security.”

He “was there to see another judge…it was only in passing that I knew he was here.  I told him I think it would be more appropriate if you did not come into my chamber.”

The issue of sanctions requested by Horwitz against Gummerson will be up in court next on April 11th at 11:30.  [Gus Philpott notes that it is now set at 1:30.]

= = = = =

Out in the hallway Horwitz expressed his extreme displeasure at the article the Northwest Herald reporter had written about Zane Seipler’s reinstatement in his job as Deputy Sheriff after an almost four-year court marathon in which Sheriff Nygren refused to accept

• the arbitrator’s decision,
• Judge Meyer’s Administrative Review decision upholding the arbitrator’s decision,
• the 2nd Appellate Court’s ruling upholding Judge Meyer’s decision upholding the arbitrator’s decision.

Finally, when the Illinois Supreme Court’s refused to review the 2nd Appellate Court panel’s decision, Nygren made as many other delaying moves as the law allowed.

The arbitrator ruled that Seipler deserved a three-day suspension for doing something similar to what a Nygren favorite did and got such a punishment.

I didn’t write an article on the story, but did comment on how the online headlines got harsher the second day the story was posted.

= = = = =

As I’m driving back to Crystal Lake, going through my head was the Beatles 1970 song, “Long and Winding Road.”

Any wonder why?

Keith Nygren

Lou Bianchi

Two local official holders in opposite factions of the McHenry County Republican Party have had legal expenses in the last half year, McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi and McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren.

We know where Bianchi’s legal fees for defense attorney Terry Ekl came from.

$275,000 was approved by the McHenry County Board in return for indemnification and a cut of any winnings from a civil law suit against Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan and Thomas McQueen, plus their investigative firm Quest International.

Nothing was advanced from his campaign fund, which ended September with $93,700 in the bank. (The report due January 16th has not yet been filed.)

Nygren has engaged attorney Mark Gummerson to represent him in former Deputy Zane Seipler’s attempt to have a Special Prosecutor named to investigate whether the Sheriff used taxpayer resources to advance his campaign.

The Sheriff has almost $12,300 in his campaign checking account and has spent $1,300 in the last three months of 2011, but none says, “Legal Expenses.”

So, unlike Governors George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich, neither McHenry County politician spent contributors’ money to defend himself from legal challenges.

Zane Seipler

Zane Seipler won a victory over former employer Sheriff Keith Nygren Thursday.

Nygren is the man who fired Seipler and against whom Seipler ran unsuccessfully in the Republican primary election almost two years ago, plus filed a wrongful termination action in Federal Court and an appeal to an arbitrator under his union’s contract on which he has prevailed on three levels so far.

The judge in the case, Thomas Meyer, is the same judge who ruled that Nygren should follow an arbitrator’s order and re-hire Seipler.  That ruling has been upheld by the Appellate Court, but Nygren has appealed the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Judge Meyer reversed his ruling to allow Nygren’s participation in Seipler’s effort to get a Special Prosecutor to investigate the possibility of criminal wrong-doing on the part of the Sheriff.  Previously, he has indicated that he didn’t know if he had made the correct decision.

Meyer had allowed Nygren to participate in the case in which Seipler was seeking the naming of a Special Prosecutor to probe, to put it in Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz’ words after the Thursday hearing,

• felony theft
• official misconduct
• misappropriation of funds

Horwitz alleged the crime Nygren committed was “stealing public money to promote [his] private interest [that is, Nygren's campaign].”

“That is not a dispute about points on a star anymore than mail fraud is about “putting a stamp on a letter.”

There were seven attorneys in Judge Meyer’s courtroom with an interest in the case.

Four took part in the proceedings:

• Nygren’s personal attorney Mark Gummerson
• Gummerson associate Rebecca Lee
• Special Assistant State’s Attorney William Caldwell
• Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz

In addition, two attorneys were watching the proceedings:

• Assistant State’s Attorney Donna Kelly, the person who advised State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi in his deposition and
• Don Leist, now working for Nygren in the capacity of Equal Opportunity Employment Officer with “other duties as may be specifically assigned to the EEO by the Sheriff, included but not limited to performing any mandated or permitted function of action allowed to be performed by the EEO or by the Sheriff,” according to the job solicitation.

In addition, attorney Robert Hanlon, who represented Seipler at the last hearing, was in attendance.

Keith Nygren

Also in the room were Nygren, sitting next to his new in-house attorney and Seipler, who sat behind Nygren.  The Sheriff left the room after the Judge ruled against his continued participation in the case.

Much of the day’s arguments were about difficult to understand civil practice questions.  The technicalities were pretty impossible to follow without the statutory citations.

Resolving them leads to “the last stage of the case,” Horwitz explained.  “We’ve gotten through all the procedural hurdles,” characterizing the almost two-year case as “not ordinary litigation.”

Prior to rendering his decision, Meyer said, “I have [had] serious concern about the direction in which case is going, but that has been resolved.”

The Judge then said, “I have no alternative but to strike Sheriff Nygren’s [ability to intervene].”

Efforts by Caldwell to argue that the merits (or lack thereof) of any criminal case and that the issue should be settled in the political arena were short-circuited by the Court, who was determined to stick to whether the State’s Attorney’s position matched those which would allow the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.

“I’m not going to investigate the Sheriff,” Meyer said, indicating that would be the job of a Special Prosecutor, if one were appointed.

Caldwell made his point, indicating he wanted to preserve the issue for appeal purposes.

Blake Horwitz

Horwitz summarized Bianchi’s position that he would not investigate Nygren because, if he did, those suing the Sheriff or his Deputies could claim the State’s Attorney had a conflict, forcing Bianchi to hire outside attorneys a practice he promised to virtually eliminate when he ran for his office seven years ago.

Horwitz also pointed out that by appointing the Appellate Prosecutor as the Special Prosecutor it would cost county taxpayers no more than they are already paying.

After considering the arguments in chambers, Judge Meyer denied another motion to dismiss Seipler’s case observing,

“[We're] probably at a point where we can move to a resolution of this matter.”

“A decision on the merits?” Caldwell asked.

That was what the Judge had decided.

Attorneys will return in January and February.

“We don’t want a motion for sanctions hanging over our heads,” Gummerson interjected, saying, “We’re ready to argue [now].”

Lee referred to a second motion for sanctions which she said was “clearly on is face designed to harass Mr. Gummerson.”

The Judge gave time to everyone to reply to the others’ motions, as well as to further brief the case, if they wished.

Such arguments should be limited to “the statutes,” Judge Meyer said.

The Judge ordered that parties to the Bianchi deposition be given a copy of the audio recording.

Keith Nygren

Lou Bianchi

McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi could be ordered to tell the public whether he ever investigated Sheriff Keith Nygren for “criminal conduct,” if Blake Horwitz, Zane Seipler’s attorney in his effort to get Judge Thomas Meyer to name a Special Prosecutor to probe whether Nygren used taxpayer resources to advance his campaign, gets his wish.

In a motion filed Friday, Horwitz cited the following unanswered question from Bianchi’s recent deposition:

Q – During the time period that you’ve been a state’s attorney for McHenry County, has your office ever investigated criminal conduct attributable — or allegations of criminal conduct attributable to Sheriff Nygren? [Emphasis added.]

MS. KELLY: Objection, Judge — Objection, relevance.

Blake Horwitz

MR. CALDWELL: Objection, way outside the scope of what the judge just told us. We’re here on Section 9008.

MR. GUMMERSON: I would agree and join in the objection.

MS. KELLY: Don’t answer that question.

MR. HORWITZ: You’re not going to let him answer?

MS. KELLY: No.

MR. HORWITZ: Okay.

“The question was never answered,” Horwitz notes in his motion.

“Petitioner believes that this Court instructed the parties to inquire whether the Office of State’s Attorney can and/or does investigate and/or prosecute the Office of the Sheriff. The pending question is directed at ascertaining the answer of this information.

“Petition requests a ruling on whether this question must be answered and if so then to direct the State’s Attorney to answer the question posited.”

This is the final section of a long article about the deposition of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, primarily by former Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler.

Part 1 is here.

Part 2 is here.

Part 3 is here.

Seipler has filed suit asking for a Special Prosecutor to be named to investigate whether Sheriff Keith Nygren used taxpayer dollars to advance his political campaign.

The court reporter was taking down what Bianchi and four attorneys said.

The attorneys were

• Blake Horwitz, Seipler’s attorney
• Donna Kelly, Bianchi’s advisor for the questioning
• Bill Caldwell, representing McHenry County interests
• Mark Gummerson, Nygren’s personal attorney

In addition, Nygren and Seipler were in the room.

Blake Horwitz

Horwitz came up with this question: “…do you believe as State’s Attorney that to represent the Sheriff civily in civil cases while at the same time investigating the Sheriff for criminal activity would give rise to a conflict pursuant to Illinois law?”

More objections.

Bianchi: “It may.”

Horwitz: “Okay. Can you explain what you mean by ‘may,’ please?”

Bianchi did not come up with a further explanation.

Horwitz: “What would be the nature, what is the nature of the conflict that could arise?”

Bianchi: “I can only explain it in terms of the petition that was filed…And I think I have given that answer several times.”

Another attempt to elicit more information from Bianchi resulted in this answer:

“Again, after I read the petition, I made no determination but I was concerned.

Lou Bianchi

“We’ve had a great track record here.“We’ve won almost every case for the Sheriff. We’ve settled one or two at nominal, 2,000, 3,000. I don’t want to jeopardize that.

“I don’t want to make a decision.

“I don’t know what the judge would do.

“I don’t want to jeopardize our successful representation of the Sheriff in not only civil suits filed for him, in all those criminal cases, the murder cases, the traffic cases, the DUIs, all those cases we’ve represented. I don’t want to jeopardize that.

“The cost to the taxpayers and the bottom end should that ever happen could be millions of dollars.“

Horwitz: “Okay. I’m going to ask one more time; and if you’re unwilling to answer my question, I may ask the judge to…”

Bianchi: “I’m willing to answer any question.”

Horwitz: “I’m asking you if you can give me an example of what you understand as a conflict with regards to representing the Sheriff at the present time in civil cases and the pending petition to appoit a special prosecutor. What would the conflict be? What’s the conflict that you foresee could exist, reasonably foresee?”

Bianchi: “It would be the same answer I’ve given several times.”

Horwitz: “Respectfully, I do not believe it has been answered adequately. And, if I understand that…”

Bianchi: “I’m dong my best.”

Horwitz: “Okay. That’s fine. So I’ll decide what I’m going to do in that regard.”

Animosity was more than evident as the deposition ended. It was mainly attorney Mark Gummerson versus Blake Horwitz with Bill Caldwell saying at one point, “All right. Time-out, girls, time-out.”

“I’ll take it up with the judge, if I choose to,” Horwitz concluded.

Mark Gummerson, personal attorney for McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren took over the questioning in the deposition of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi.

This is the third part of a four-part article concerning that despoliation which Judge Thomas Meyer ordered to try to clear up whether the State’s Attorney was available to prosecute Nygren.

In the room were

• Lou Bianchi,McHenry County States Attorney
• Keith Nygren, McHenry County Sheriff
• Zane Seipler, who filed suit to appoint a Special Prosecutor to probe Nygren’s alleged use of tax dollars for campaign purposes
• Mark Gummerson, personal attorney for Nygren
• Bill Caldwell, Special Assistant State’s Attorney representing County government
• Donna Kelly, Assistant State’s attorney advising Bianchi in the deposition
• Blake Horwitz, attorney for Seipler

Gummerson asks if Bianchi has been sick or absent from his office since Seipler’s petition was filed, conditions that would have prevented him from prosecuting the allegations.

Bianchi: “No.”

Gummerson: “…unable to attend to your duties..?”

Bianchi (after clarifying the question): “No.”

Gummerson: “…any personal interest in any of the allegations…?”

Horwitz interjects that Judge Thomas Meyer has specifically directed that “personal interest” not be a subject of the deposition.

At this point Kelly asked to speak with her client Bianchi and a short recess ensued.

Resuming, Kelly said her reading of the court order went to “any purported animus” between the State’s Attorney and the Sheriff as opposed to the part of the statute to which Gummerson was referring.

Horwitz pointed out that the Judge had excluded “personal interest” as an issue in the case.

Bianchi’s answer: “To the best of my knowledge, no.”

Horwitz had additional questions at this point.

“If it’s your job to put the bad guys away, then why is it you won’t look into the allegations attributable to Sheriff Nygren that are outline in the petition for the appointment of a special prosecutor?”

Three objections were made and Caldwell advised Bianchi not to answer the question.

Bianchi did not answer the question.

There was some more fencing before Horwitz asked this question:

“Is is accurate to say that it’s part of your job as the State’s Attorney of McHenry County to discern whether or not you can investigate a public official?”

Bianchi: “If the question comes up.”

Horwitz: “In this case has the question come up attributable to Sheriff Nygren?”

Bianchi (after a round of objections): “As I mentioned, when the petition was filed, I read it. I made—I did not look at the merits. I made no decision as to the merits of it, and I made the decision not to investigate based on the reasons I’ve given before.”

After a bit more fencing by the three opposing attorneys, Horwitz phrased a final question: “Did the question come up relative to whether or not a public official should be investigated when you reviewed the petition to appoint a special prosecutor concerning Sheriff Nygren?”

Bianchi: “I don’t recall.’

Trying again, Horwitz asked (with more objections being stated), “Is it part of your job as the McHenry County State’s Attorney to determine whether or not the office of the McHenry County State’s Attorney should investigate or prosecute the sitting Sheriff for McHenry County?”

Bianchi (after more objections): “It is my job to review any allegations against any elected or appointed official.”

Horwitz: “Is it part of your job as well to decide not to investigate or prosecute a sitting official for McHenry County?”

More objections.

Bianchi: “That may be a decision I come to.”

Horwitz: “Is it also part of your job to choose not to investigate or prosecute the McHenry County Sheriff because you want to avoid conflicts?”

A brief recess in which Kelly conferred with her client Bianchi took place.

Bianchi: “I can’t. It’s too confusing…It’s just I don’t understand it.”

Re-phrased, Bianchi gave substantially the same answer he had since the beginning that he didn’t want to jeopardize the taxpayers’ interests by probing the Sheriff’s Office.

Yesterday McHenry County Blog ran Part 1 of a long article on Zane Seipler’s lawyer Blake Horwitz’ questioning of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi under oath.

Also present were attorneys Donna Kelly, representing Bianchi, Mark Gummerson, representing Keith Nygren personally, Bill Caldwell, representing McHenry County’s interests, plus Sheriff Keith Nygren and the man trying to get a Special Prosecutor appointed to probe whether he used taxpayer dollars on his campaign, former Deputy Sheriff and 2010 GOP primary candidate for Sheriff, Zane Seipler.

The February 14, 2011, letter referred to in the deposition. Click to enlarge.

After looking at what was said about “availability,” I decided just to start with the beginning of the questioning, Seipler attorney Horwitz asking them.

Horwitz starts the deposition with the letter dated Feb. 14, 2011.

That is followed by three pages of objections after which Horwitz says, “Let’s assume every objection on the planet’s going to enter on every question.”

When finally allowed to answer the question, Bianchi explains his campaign pledge to bring as much of the defense work for the County in-house, rather than by outside counsel, how it was saving taxpayers about $10,000 a week.

Horwitz elicited the information that the State’s Attorney’s Office was representing the Sheriff in February, 2011.

Horwitz focused on this sentence in the February letter:

“We want to make it clear that this Office of State’s Attorney has not and will not investigate the claims outline in Mr. Seipler’s petition.”

“…and your recent letter for the reasons stated above” ended the sentence and all three opposing attorneys objected to its exclusion from the question.

So, Horwitz asked Bianchi, “Do you have to include that…Is that part of the sentence? Is that a necessary corollary in your mind?”

Bianchi: “No.”

Lou Bianchi

Continuing, Bianchi explained what the sentence meant:

“When I reviewed the petition filed by Mr. Seipler, I did not review it and make any determination as the merits stated therein but I made a decision not to prosecute—not to investigate the Sheriff on these allegations—again, not having reviewed them on their merit—because I didn’t want to take the risk or chance that if we investigated the Sheriff, potentially someone in the future file a motion that would suggest that we were conflicted on any future cases.

“We’ve had a great deal of success representing the Sheriff. I did not want to jeopardize that if someone filed a motion saying we could no longer represent the Sheriff in the lawsuits against him or on his behalf or all the criminal cases that we represent the Sheriff in his—and the deputies. I didn’t want to take the chance that someone would be able to make that motion and jeopardize our ability to represent the Sheriff because I believe it would cost the county millions of dollars if that occurred.”

Horwitz asked if it were official policy not to investigate any of the allegations lodged by Seipler.

Bianchi: “We don’t have any specific written policy that says in this case we’re not going to. That’s the decision I made.”

Blake Horwitz

Horwitz broadened the question to include all investigations by all employees of the State’s Attorney’s Office, which led to another round of objections.

Afterward, Bianchi said, “The decision was made our office would not investigate those claims…My office won’t investigate.”

Horwitz asked if Bianchi might change his mind over the next six months.

Bianchi: “I don’t want to speculate…I don’t believe so.”

Apparently trying to pin down Bianchi’s plans, Horwitz asks, “Is it accurate to say that the Office of State’s Attorney will not investigate the merits behind the petition to appoint a special prosecutor?”

Bianchi: “I (expanded to include the entire office) have not in the past looked into the merits, and I don’t intend to in the future.”

At this point in the deposition, we reach the page I started with in which Bianchi refuses to comment on whether his office has investigated the Sheriff’s Office over the past seven years Bianchi has been State’s Attorney.

Horwitz probes a bit into th $10,000 a week savings figure, asking whether it was important to Bianchi to save the taxpayers that money.

Bianchi reiterates that it was a campaign pledge, not his job, then, says, “My job is to put the bad guys away.”

= = = = =
Part 3 Sunday.

Lou Bianchi

In looking over a copy of the deposition of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi in the case brought by former Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler asking for a Special Prosecutor to be named to probe whether Sheriff Keith Nygren used taxpayer money to advance his political campaign, the first thing I did was search for the key word.

What did I consider the “key word?”

“Availability.”

That’s what Judge Thomas Meyer wanted to know.

Was Bianchi “available” to prosecute the Sheriff?

So I went to the only page where the word is mentioned, page 22. Below is most of what was said, certainly what I think was relevant:

Seipler attorney blake Horwitz: “During the time period when you’ve been state’s attorney for McHenry County, has your office ever investigated criminal conduct attributable—or allegations of criminal conduct attributable to Sheriff Nygren?”

Attorneys Donna Kelly, Bill Caldwell and Mark Gummerson objections

Assistant State’s Attorney Kelly, advising Bianchi in the deposition: “Don’t answer that question.”

Blake Horwitz

Horwitz: “I think that’s going to hinder the issue because whether or not he’s able to is—The judge didn’t actually make it specific to this case ; but I don’t see how to get around it because the issue of criminal conduct, sort of the general concept the judge wants us to deal with versus the specific issues of this case, I have no desired to get into any kind of prior investigations in any way, shape or form. But a question of policy or availability is what’s at issue under this statute…

“And so my concern is that without an answer to that question, then the question will arise is there any way to test the concept of availability other than looking at the allegations in this case, i.e., cross-examination, you test the concept, you test the policy, test the rule, you test the decision. Or is it specific to this case? Is it personal? Something the Judge—These are the things the judge has inquired about, and it’s not my desire to get into it being personal. But I just want to put the issue to rest. That’s all I want to do.

“So my concern is that by instructing him not to answer the question and him not answering the question, it will prevent that issue from being tested and, therefore, we’re coming back again. If he doesn’t answer it, he doesn’t answer it….”

Nygren personal attorney Mark Gummerson: “I will object as to Mr. Horwitz’ thoughts (being entered into the deposition record).

= = = = =
Present McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, Zane Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz, plus attorneys Donna Kelly, representing Bianchi, Mark Gummerson, representing Keith Nygren personally, Bill Caldwell, representing McHenry County’s interests, plus Sheriff Keith Nygren and the man trying to get a Special Prosecutor appointed to probe whether he used taxpayer dollars on his campaign, former Deputy Sheriff and 2010 GOP primary candidate for Sheriff, Zane Seipler.

Part 2 tomorrow

Zane Seipler

For the first time, former Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler didn’t have attorney Blake Horwitz representing him.

Local attorney Robert Hanlon entered his appearance on the motion by Horwitz to sanction Mark Gummerson, Nygren’s personal attorney, for Gummerson’s behavior during the deposition of State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi on whether or not Bianchi was available to prosecute Nygren.

Nygren was in the room during the questioning.

When the case was called before Judge Thomas Meyer, Assistant Special State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell was present, but Gummerson was not.

After paging Gummerson and his not appearing by about 9:40, the Judge gave Gummerson and Caldwell seven days to file written replies.

Assistant State’s Attorney Donna Kelly, who advised Bianchi during the deposition was in the courtroom.

When I asked around, I discovered that Hanlon had some connection to Carolyn Cox. There was a high-profile prosecution of Carolyn Cox’ husband, a case in which Gummerson unsuccessfully defended him on charges of having tried to kill his wife.