Transcript in Last Zane Seipler Wrongful Termination Court Hearing – Part 5

December 24th, McHenry County Blog ran the first part of the December 15, 2010, transcript of a Rockford hearing before Magistrate P. Michael Mahone.

December 25th, the second part was published with the third installment published Sunday. Part 4 went up Monday and Part 5 is below.

MR. HORWITZ: There’s a Ms. Weech, Mrs. Weech. I think it’s Jan Weech.

THE COURT: Janet, I think. J-a-n-e-t.

MR. HORWITZ: Yes. Her deposition went, and she was a 30(b)(6) witness.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HORWITZ: During the deposition, defense counsel, his associate, agreed to a continuation for the deposition as a basis for one of her 30(b)(6) witness — 30(b)(6) opinions, which is why documents were destroyed, and these documents that are destroyed are two forms that officers wrote relative to 25 voided tickets.

THE COURT: What are you talking? Thirty minutes to wrap that up?

MR. HORWITZ: Maybe 45.

MR. SOTOS: Judge, if you notice on the motion, all of these depositions, for the most part, are depositions that have been started that never finished.

THE COURT: I see.

MR. SOTOS: But, you know, 45 minutes with Ms. Weech, we’ll agree to that, Judge, because —

THE COURT: No. Thirty minutes. Thirty minutes you can wrap up Ms. Weech. Who else do you need?

MR. HORWITZ: By the way, I guess defense counsel is the one that wanted to continue on with Milliman. So, I’m not sure what — the accusation you’re throwing.

THE COURT: No, I understand. No, I didn’t make any accusation, counsel. I’m sorry if you think I did. I put three hours down to Milliman because from what you’ve told me he said, giving counsel three hours to follow through on Deputy Milliman, that seemed reasonable to me. It seemed like he said a lot.

MR. HORWITZ: That’s fine. No. So, three hours. I would like an opportunity to ask questions, as well.

THE COURT: I’ll give you an hour.

MR. HORWITZ: All right. So, it’s three on —

THE COURT: Three for him on Milliman. One for you for rebuttal. I don’t know what Pyle has set forth. I haven’t put a number on Pyle.

MR. SOTOS: You said two and a half hours, Judge. I think you did put a number on that one.

THE COURT: All right. Two and a half on Pyle. Thirty minutes on Weech. What else you got?

MR. HORWITZ: Given the testimony of Milliman, we did issue subpoenas for Jose Rivera and Gary Pack. Jose Rivera is the individual that engaged in the illegal scheme that would be able —

THE COURT: Allegedly.

MR. HORWITZ: Yes. That would be able to articulate the admissions by Sheriff Nygren as to many things. Do you want me to go any further about that? Do you want me to argue as to whether or not I should take his dep? I’m just telling you what we have.

THE COURT: Well, why don’t you argue, first of all, as to why you should take his dep because, obviously, as you can tell, I’m trying to wrap this up.

MR. HORWITZ: Sure.

THE COURT: And that’s to — hopefully to both your clients’ benefits to get this wrapped up, get by if we’re going to get a Rule 56, and get the case tried and find out what the jury thinks of all this.

MR. HORWITZ: Jose Rivera would be able to — Jose Rivera is a business partner, the allegations run from — alleged business partner of Sheriff Nygren.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HORWITZ: That’s what Deputy Milliman said. So, to be clear, him, Deputy Milliman, Jose Rivera, and Sheriff Nygren would sit in a room on many, many, many occasions, and they would talk about what is going on. Okay?

THE COURT: That’s what Milliman said?

MR. HORWITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HORWITZ: 2000, he said. 1999 and 2000. That’s when they had these conversations. And subsequently.

MR. SOTOS: That’s not what he says.

THE COURT: That’s okay.

MR. HORWITZ: So, and these are the things he said on the record.

All right. So, there are three events, three instances where Jose Rivera and Sheriff —

THE COURT: You got a Monell claim?

MR. HORWITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HORWITZ: Do you want me to talk further?

THE COURT: No. That’s where that fits, I assume. I assume you’re going to tell me it fits on the Monell claim.

MR. HORWITZ: It fits on the Monell claim. It also fits potentially for 404(b) evidence and 608(b) evidence.

THE COURT: See, I think it’s kind of hard to get there, but —

MR. SOTOS: Judge, can I respond to this —

THE COURT: Yeah, you sure can.

More tomorrow.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.