Transcript in Last Zane Seipler Wrongful Termination Court Hearing – Part 8

Christmas Eve, McHenry County Blog ran the first part of the December 15, 2010, transcript of a Rockford hearing before Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney.

December 25th, the second part was published with the third installment published Sunday. Part 4 went up Monday, Part 5 Tuesday, Part 6 Wednesday and Part 7 Thursday.

Now it is New Year’s Eve day and time for Part 8.

THE COURT: What else do you need?

MR. HORWITZ: Okay. So, I’ve mentioned the deposition of Jose Rivera, Gary Pack.

MR. SOTOS: What about Rivera? I didn’t know that that was resolved.

THE COURT: I haven’t done that yet. I haven’t done Jose Rivera. You know the ones I’ve done. You’ve written it down.

MR. SOTOS: No. I just said that because he said that I’ve already said Rivera.

THE COURT: No. You want to take Jose Rivera, and who else do you want?

MR. HORWITZ: Just so you know, I did already issue a subpoena for him and Gary Pack for tomorrow, the depositions. I issued that last week.

THE COURT: Did you clear the date with counsel?

MR. HORWITZ: No, I did not. I just spoke to him about it right now, but, no, I didn’t clear the date, Judge. Things were happening very fast with Deputy Milliman’s testimony and all the back and forth we’ve been doing in this case. So, I sent out the subpoena, and I’m more than happy to clear the dates and cooperate fully.

THE COURT: Well, and I’ll direct that you do so.

MR. HORWITZ: Absolutely. That’s perfectly fine. We always do it. And, by the way, you wrote down that July 22nd. That’s just not correct. But that’s their spin on it. That’s all it is.

THE COURT: Well, that’s what he told me. That’s why I wrote it down, counsel.

MR. HORWITZ: I understand.

THE COURT: I do that to take notes. I’m not writing an opinion up here. I’m just trying to keep up with the two of you. Now, you want Jose Rivera. Who’s the other guy again?

MR. HORWITZ: Gary Pack.

MR. SOTOS: He’s a former State’s Attorney from McHenry County.

THE COURT: Why do you want Mr. Pack?

MR. HORWITZ: Because Deputy Milliman stated that what Jose Rivera would do is speak to those individuals — speak to the Hispanics, communicate with the Hispanics that were pulled over for driving a vehicle without a valid driver’s license and —

THE COURT: I’m listening.

MR. HORWITZ: And he would then ask them if they want to enter into a deal whereby their case is dismissed or nolle prosequi in exchange for money. He said —

THE COURT: Who gets the money?

MR. HORWITZ: Jose Rivera does. Somebody in the State’s Attorney’s Office. I do not know who yet.

THE COURT: How does this fit into your guy?

MR. HORWITZ: And Sheriff Nygren receives the money.

MR. SOTOS: Judge, can I just say something?

MR. HORWITZ: These are Hispanics that are targeted.

THE COURT: I got that, but you still haven’t told me. How does this fit into your case?

MR. HORWITZ: It fits into the case, number one, Hispanics were targeted. Just like in our racial profiling case, Hispanics were targeted.

THE COURT: Who’s Jose Rivera?

MR. HORWITZ: He’s a business partner of Sheriff Nygren.

MR. SOTOS: The criminal coconspirator.

MR. HORWITZ: Pursuant to Deputy Milliman in a sit-down conversation —

THE COURT: So, you’re telling me that the money, you think, gets to Nygren eventually?

MR. HORWITZ: Absolutely, Judge. That is what Deputy Milliman stated.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SOTOS: Judge —

MR. HORWITZ: He is what he is. He said what he said. And, you know, I don’t know what else to tell you, but those are his words.

MR. SOTOS: Can I tell you one more thing, Judge?

THE COURT: Sure. Why not. I’ve heard everything.

MR. SOTOS: I know. I know.

MR. HORWITZ: There’s still more.

MR. SOTOS: This Milliman testified that his perception of this scheme is based on conversations, and I’ll provide you with the dep transcript if counsel disagrees, that occurred between him and Nygren and Rivera back in 1999 and 2000, and he believed that this criminal enterprise was ongoing up through 2006, which is before —

THE COURT: All this happened.

MR. SOTOS: — any of this happened. And all I would say is that these are really serious allegations, and they may well — you know, if there’s a criminal investigation or something of that sort, I get that, but for that to become something that we’re now going to investigate in this case seems to me to be so far beyond the pale from —

THE COURT: Have you had the number of depositions that were authorized in the case management order at this point?

MR. HORWITZ: I don’t think so, but I haven’t tallied it up.

THE COURT: Counsel?

MR. SOTOS: I believe that he has, Judge, but I can’t tell you that right now —

MR. HORWITZ: I don’t think that’s true.

MR. SOTOS: — for certain.


MR. SOTOS: I’m fairly certain that he has.

THE COURT: Well, if, in fact, counsel hasn’t, he doesn’t need my permission to take the depositions. If he has, he does. Now, is that it then, those two?

MR. HORWITZ: Jill Tutt is a deposition that defense counsel’s associate stated that she would set up, and she’s not given a date yet for Jill Tutt’s deposition. That’s a deposition —

THE COURT: That was originally set up on July 15th, 2010; is that right?

MR. HORWITZ: I don’t know the date, Judge. What happened is that defense counsel — you provided four hours, and the deposition goes forward, and then she either has to leave or whatnot, and I don’t get an opportunity to redirect, or whatever you want, ask questions.

THE COURT: Do you all agree — did you all agree to —

MR. SOTOS: He deposed her for three and a half hours on July 15th, six months ago.

MR. HORWITZ: I didn’t depose her. Your associate did, noticed her up. And I did not get an opportunity to ask questions, and she left, and that’s what happened.

THE COURT: How much time do you want?

MR. HORWITZ: Two hours.

THE COURT: That means you take one.

MR. HORWITZ: That’s right. I was thinking of saying three.

THE COURT: I used to be a plaintiff’s lawyer, too.

MR. HORWITZ: I was thinking of saying three. I wasn’t sure how that would play out.

COURT: I’ll give you one.

More tomorrow.


Transcript in Last Zane Seipler Wrongful Termination Court Hearing – Part 8 — 4 Comments

  1. So much for the Court giving counsel enough time for the truth to come out.

    But then the attorneys would bill less time arguing about how much time they should get.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.