Original Story: chicagotribune.com
A Federal Trade Commission crackdown on the debt collection industry has resulted in a $6.4 million settlement for victims of a suburban Chicago couple who ran a phantom payday loan debt collection scheme, authorities said Wednesday. A Louisville debtor and creditor lawyer represents clients in collection matters.
Charles and Chantelle Dickey of Oswego were ordered to pay the amount by a Chicago federal judge Tuesday, and banned from operating a debt collection agency.
It is unclear from court documents whether the defendants' assets, which were frozen during the investigation, will be sufficient to pay the judgment. They could not be reached for comment.
The FTC and the Illinois attorney general's office charged the couple in April with threatening and intimidating consumers over payday or other short-term loans that were not owed. Many consumers paid the couple's now-defunct Aurora-based collection company, KIP, simply because they wanted to end the harassment, according to authorities. A Las Vegas contract lawyer is following this story closely.
"You have scam operations that are collecting fake debts that consumers do not owe, and they do it through threatening and harassing individuals into eventually paying money that they don't owe," Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said.
Operating under multiple business names including Payday Loan Recovery Group and Second Chance Financial, the defendants targeted consumers over loans they claimed were delinquent, threatening to garnish wages, suspend or revoke their driver's licenses, have them arrested or sue those who did not pay, according to the complaint.
Some of the victims had taken out short-term loans from payday lenders, but the loans were not delinquent, nor did the defendants have the right to collect on the loans, the complaint said. Many of the victims were outside Illinois, a spokeswoman for the Illinois attorney general's office said. An Aiken debtor and creditor lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The judgment includes proceeds from the sale of a car and the turnover of any assets held by third parties, including financial institutions.
Former employees believe the Dickeys may hold KIP assets in Puerto Rico, Jamaica and the Bahamas, according to a court-appointed receiver in the case.
The couple's Oswego home is in foreclosure, authorities said.
The nationwide initiative, Operation Collection Protection, includes 30 new actions by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies against collectors who use tactics like harassing phone calls and false threats of litigation, arrest and wage garnishment.
FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said abusive debt collection has risen along with consumer debt, with nearly 30 million consumers having at least one account in collection. She said while the vast majority of debt collection contacts are legal, many are not.
"We receive more complaints about this industry than any other," Ramirez said. Last year consumers filed over 280,000 complaints with federal authorities related to debt collection, she said.
This year, the FTC has filed 11 cases against more than 50 defendants, secured more than $88 million in judgments and banned 24 defendants from the industry, Ramirez said.
Showing posts with label Chicago. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chicago. Show all posts
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Texting Claims Lives of Drivers
Story first reported from Yahoo.com
Judging by stories in just the past few weeks, texting while driving has become America's most urgent public safety issue, filling local television screens across the country with stories of crashes, near-misses and dire warnings. What's less clear is whether a brace of new laws will do much, or how many drivers will be willing to turn off their phones completely while driving.
The scene comes from Aberdeen, Wash., where a teenager at the wheel of a Dodge Ram pickup on Sunday ran off the road into a wooden fence, sending one slat through the windshield where his head should be. According to KOMO-TV, the driver only suffered minor injuries, but the Washington State Police say witnesses saw the driver texting in the moments before the crash.
Last month, a Houston man revealed that moments before a serious crash, he had texted "I need to quit texting because I could die in a car accident." And last week, Alabama became the 39th state to make it a crime to enter text into a phone while behind the wheel; in 10 states and the District of Columbia, it's illegal to pick up your phone at all while driving. A Chicago car accident lawyer says there has been an up-tick in legal ramifications as a result of traffic accidents due to texting while driving.
While such laws are still relatively new, some police agencies are already saying they're not effective enough. The problem is the great unanswered question among safety advocates: Is texting that much more or less dangerous than anything else people do with their phones while driving? Alabama's law, like most states, still allows drivers to dial numbers, look at maps and otherwise use the phone, but not text. Telling the difference between the two from outside a car moving 70 mph isn't a job most troopers or anyone else can do, as WCNC-TV in Charlotte, N.C., found when it sent two cameramen out to surreptitiously bust drivers in the act.
And the Alabama law also highlights a mismatch between the furor over texting and what's known about its actual impact. While cellphones have become ubiquitous over the past two decades, deaths in accidents and crashes have declined to record lows. Research has shown time and again that driving with a cell phone reduces concentration and can lead to crashes, but has yet to put a firm link on just how many crashes might be caused directly by electronic distractions. Alabama authorities say their record show that in 2010, drivers distracted by cellphones or other electronic devices contributed to 1,256 crashes and five deaths. It's a sad statistic, but that same year, alcohol-related accidents killed 279 people in Alabama, a figure that did not lead to any new laws.
Whatever the studies say, it's clear that not paying attention behind the wheel for any reason makes driving less safe, even with modern aids like Bluetooth and voice commands. Driving can be tedious, and the need to stay connected so strong that far too many drivers think they can get away with it -- right until the fence comes through the windshield. Once upon a time, people were forced to travel without concern for e-mails and telephone calls they could be missing. Try it on your next drive, and stay off the local news.
Judging by stories in just the past few weeks, texting while driving has become America's most urgent public safety issue, filling local television screens across the country with stories of crashes, near-misses and dire warnings. What's less clear is whether a brace of new laws will do much, or how many drivers will be willing to turn off their phones completely while driving.
The scene comes from Aberdeen, Wash., where a teenager at the wheel of a Dodge Ram pickup on Sunday ran off the road into a wooden fence, sending one slat through the windshield where his head should be. According to KOMO-TV, the driver only suffered minor injuries, but the Washington State Police say witnesses saw the driver texting in the moments before the crash.
Last month, a Houston man revealed that moments before a serious crash, he had texted "I need to quit texting because I could die in a car accident." And last week, Alabama became the 39th state to make it a crime to enter text into a phone while behind the wheel; in 10 states and the District of Columbia, it's illegal to pick up your phone at all while driving. A Chicago car accident lawyer says there has been an up-tick in legal ramifications as a result of traffic accidents due to texting while driving.
While such laws are still relatively new, some police agencies are already saying they're not effective enough. The problem is the great unanswered question among safety advocates: Is texting that much more or less dangerous than anything else people do with their phones while driving? Alabama's law, like most states, still allows drivers to dial numbers, look at maps and otherwise use the phone, but not text. Telling the difference between the two from outside a car moving 70 mph isn't a job most troopers or anyone else can do, as WCNC-TV in Charlotte, N.C., found when it sent two cameramen out to surreptitiously bust drivers in the act.
And the Alabama law also highlights a mismatch between the furor over texting and what's known about its actual impact. While cellphones have become ubiquitous over the past two decades, deaths in accidents and crashes have declined to record lows. Research has shown time and again that driving with a cell phone reduces concentration and can lead to crashes, but has yet to put a firm link on just how many crashes might be caused directly by electronic distractions. Alabama authorities say their record show that in 2010, drivers distracted by cellphones or other electronic devices contributed to 1,256 crashes and five deaths. It's a sad statistic, but that same year, alcohol-related accidents killed 279 people in Alabama, a figure that did not lead to any new laws.
Whatever the studies say, it's clear that not paying attention behind the wheel for any reason makes driving less safe, even with modern aids like Bluetooth and voice commands. Driving can be tedious, and the need to stay connected so strong that far too many drivers think they can get away with it -- right until the fence comes through the windshield. Once upon a time, people were forced to travel without concern for e-mails and telephone calls they could be missing. Try it on your next drive, and stay off the local news.
For more national and
worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For more local and
state of Michigan Business News, visit the Michigan
Business News blog.
For more Health News, visit the Healthcare and Medical
News blog.
For more Electronics News, visit the Electronics
America blog.
For more Real Estate News, visit the Commercial and
Residential Real Estate blog.
For more Law News, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For more Advertising News, visit the Advertising,
Marketing and Media blog.
For more Environmental News, visit the Environmental
Responsibility News blog.
Monday, January 23, 2012
At Least 102 Fraudulent Mortgage Bailouts Lands Chicago Lawyer in Jail
First appeared in FBI: Chicago Division
A former Chicago lawyer was sentenced to 15 years in federal
prison for engaging in mortgage and bankruptcy fraud schemes involving a
so-called “mortgage bailout” program that purported to “rescue” financially
distressed homeowners but instead tricked victims into relinquishing title to
their homes and declaring bankruptcy. The defendant, Norton Helton,
participated in at least 102 fraudulent mortgage bailout transactions and more
than a dozen fraudulent bankruptcies in 2004 and 2005. He was ordered to pay more
than $3.2 million in mandatory restitution to various lenders and financial
institutions that were not repaid by the borrowers or fully recovered through
subsequent foreclosure sales, federal law enforcement officials announced
today.
Helton, 50, of Atlanta and formerly of Chicago, was
sentenced Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan in federal
court in Chicago. He was ordered to begin serving his sentence in June.
Helton and two co-defendants, Charles White and Felicia Ford,
were convicted of multiple fraud counts following a five-week trial in June and
July 2010. White, 43, of Chicago, was sentenced late last year to more than 22
years in prison, while Ford, 39, of Chicago, is awaiting sentencing next month.
White owned and operated Eyes Have Not Seen (EHNS), which
purported to offer insolvent homeowners mortgage bailout services that would
prevent them from losing their homes in foreclosure by selling their property
to third-party investors for whom the defendants fraudulently obtained mortgage
financing. The victim-clients were assured they could continue living in their
homes rent and mortgage-free for a year while they attempted to eliminate their
debt and repair their credit. EHNS misled clients concerning the operation of
the purported program. In particular, victim-clients were not told that their
homes were, in fact, being sold to third parties and that ENHS would strip
their homes of any available equity at the time of sale, which EHNS did.
Instead, ENHS clients were told that they were only temporarily transferring
their homes and would preserve their ownership rights.
Helton was recruited by White to represent ENHS participants
at the real estate transactions it orchestrated. The victim-clients typically
met Helton for the first time at the closings at which they sold their homes.
Helton worked to placate individuals who questioned the program and to dissuade
them from retaining independent legal advice. He received above-market legal
fees for appearing at closings at which he did little more than guide
victim-clients through the paperwork that sold their homes with EHNS receiving
all of the profits from the sale. Helton further used the ENHS real estate
closings to recruit prospective bankruptcy clients, informing them that
bankruptcy would serve as a component of the bailout program. Helton
subsequently filed more than a dozen bankruptcy petitions for victim-clients
that omitted any reference to their recent EHNS property sales.
In addition to participating in ENHS’s bailout program,
Helton attempted to implement his own mortgage bailout program through Diamond
Management of Chicago, Inc., a foreclosure avoidance company comparable to
EHNS. Helton marketed Diamond’s bailout program and his bankruptcy services as
part of a “credit repair” system.
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Illinois, announced the sentence today with Robert D.
Grant, Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; Barry McLaughlin, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Housing
and Urban Development Office of Inspector General in Chicago; and Thomas P.
Brady, Inspector in Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in Chicago.
The U.S. Trustee Program, a Justice Department component that oversees
administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees, also assisted in the
investigation.
The government is being represented by Assistant U.S.
Attorneys Joel Hammerman and Mark E. Schneider.
The case is part of a continuing effort to investigate and
prosecute mortgage fraud in northern Illinois and nationwide under the umbrella
of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which was
established to
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Roadbuilder Says Blago Urged him to Raise Cash
Associated Press
A politically connected roadbuilding executive said Tuesday that former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich dangled the possibility that he might launch a $6 billion highway program urgently needed by the industry — but seemed to make it contingent on getting campaign money.
"It seemed like in my mind they were coupled," Gerald Krozel, a former official of the American Concrete Paving Association, testified at Blagojevich's federal corruption trial.
Krozel's statements about a his meeting with Blagojevich and his inner circle contrasted with testimony from an FBI agent, who said Blagojevich told agents in March 2005 that he tried to stay "a million miles away" from fundraising while he was governor and didn't even want to know who was giving him money and who was not.
Two former finance directors of Blagojevich's campaign fund also testified that Blagojevich was deeply involved in the search for political dollars.
Kelly Glynn, who was finance director of his 2002 campaign, and Danielle Stilz, who later held the same job, testified that Blagojevich attended fundraising meetings, asked detailed questions about who was reaching his fundraising goals, and sometimes cursed and yelled when he felt a fundraiser was falling short.
Stilz testified that Blagojevich "had an intimate knowledge of those numbers."
"He knew them better than I did," she said.
Blagojevich, 53, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he sought to get a high-paying job or massive campaign contribution in exchange for an appointment to the U.S. Senate seat that President Barack Obama left to move to the White House. He also has pleaded not guilty to scheming to launch a racketeering operation using the powers of the governor's office, and to lying when he denied that he tied campaign fundraising to state jobs and contracts.
Krozel's testimony and that of the two fundraisers was aimed at convincing jurors that Blagojevich was lying at the 2005 meeting with two FBI agents and a pair of federal prosecutors.
The former governor's brother, Robert Blagojevich, 54, has pleaded not guilty to taking part in the alleged scheme to sell or trade the Senate seat and to helping the governor illegally pressure a racetrack owner and a construction executive — Krozel — to contribute money.
Krozel testified that he was summoned by Blagojevich to the September 2008 meeting at his campaign office and found the governor there with his brother and his former chief of staff, Alonzo Monk, who by that time had left state government and become a lobbyist.
He said Blagojevich outlined what he described as a small, $1.5 billion roadbuilding program and the possibility of a larger version totaling $6 billion in construction money.
Krozel said the economy had hit his Illinois concrete contracting company hard and they needed that kind of boost. It was then that Blagojevich brought up the subject of campaign money, he said.
"He said he wanted me to do fundraising for him and to do it by the end of the year before the law changes," Krozel said. He said Blagojevich was referring to a state ethics law that starting in January would have barred state concrete contractors from contributing to the governor.
Krozel said he said he didn't know what he could do. But as he left the meeting, he said, somebody — he didn't recall who — asked him how much he thought he could raise. He said that and the fact that there was a January "deadline" to him "implied a connection" with the highway program.
"The money that I could raise for him would have a bearing on the project," he said was his understanding.
Earlier, prosecutors presented testimony aimed at supporting their claim that now-jailed real estate developer Tony Rezko funneled money to the governor through his wife.
Chicago real estate broker Marianne Piazzi testified that she sold a North Side townhouse in August 2003 for about $574,000. She said Blagojevich's wife, Patti, had nothing to do with the sale as far as she knew and she didn't know her then.
FBI agent Jane Ferguson testified that Patti Blagojevich received a $44,000 commission from Rezko for selling the same property. Patti Blagojevich has been charged with no wrongdoing in the case.
Rezko is awaiting sentencing for scheming to launch a $7 million kickback scheme using clout in the governor's office to pack two state boards with power over big money decisions with members who would take orders from him.
"It seemed like in my mind they were coupled," Gerald Krozel, a former official of the American Concrete Paving Association, testified at Blagojevich's federal corruption trial.
Krozel's statements about a his meeting with Blagojevich and his inner circle contrasted with testimony from an FBI agent, who said Blagojevich told agents in March 2005 that he tried to stay "a million miles away" from fundraising while he was governor and didn't even want to know who was giving him money and who was not.
Two former finance directors of Blagojevich's campaign fund also testified that Blagojevich was deeply involved in the search for political dollars.
Kelly Glynn, who was finance director of his 2002 campaign, and Danielle Stilz, who later held the same job, testified that Blagojevich attended fundraising meetings, asked detailed questions about who was reaching his fundraising goals, and sometimes cursed and yelled when he felt a fundraiser was falling short.
Stilz testified that Blagojevich "had an intimate knowledge of those numbers."
"He knew them better than I did," she said.
Blagojevich, 53, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he sought to get a high-paying job or massive campaign contribution in exchange for an appointment to the U.S. Senate seat that President Barack Obama left to move to the White House. He also has pleaded not guilty to scheming to launch a racketeering operation using the powers of the governor's office, and to lying when he denied that he tied campaign fundraising to state jobs and contracts.
Krozel's testimony and that of the two fundraisers was aimed at convincing jurors that Blagojevich was lying at the 2005 meeting with two FBI agents and a pair of federal prosecutors.
The former governor's brother, Robert Blagojevich, 54, has pleaded not guilty to taking part in the alleged scheme to sell or trade the Senate seat and to helping the governor illegally pressure a racetrack owner and a construction executive — Krozel — to contribute money.
Krozel testified that he was summoned by Blagojevich to the September 2008 meeting at his campaign office and found the governor there with his brother and his former chief of staff, Alonzo Monk, who by that time had left state government and become a lobbyist.
He said Blagojevich outlined what he described as a small, $1.5 billion roadbuilding program and the possibility of a larger version totaling $6 billion in construction money.
Krozel said the economy had hit his Illinois concrete contracting company hard and they needed that kind of boost. It was then that Blagojevich brought up the subject of campaign money, he said.
"He said he wanted me to do fundraising for him and to do it by the end of the year before the law changes," Krozel said. He said Blagojevich was referring to a state ethics law that starting in January would have barred state concrete contractors from contributing to the governor.
Krozel said he said he didn't know what he could do. But as he left the meeting, he said, somebody — he didn't recall who — asked him how much he thought he could raise. He said that and the fact that there was a January "deadline" to him "implied a connection" with the highway program.
"The money that I could raise for him would have a bearing on the project," he said was his understanding.
Earlier, prosecutors presented testimony aimed at supporting their claim that now-jailed real estate developer Tony Rezko funneled money to the governor through his wife.
Chicago real estate broker Marianne Piazzi testified that she sold a North Side townhouse in August 2003 for about $574,000. She said Blagojevich's wife, Patti, had nothing to do with the sale as far as she knew and she didn't know her then.
FBI agent Jane Ferguson testified that Patti Blagojevich received a $44,000 commission from Rezko for selling the same property. Patti Blagojevich has been charged with no wrongdoing in the case.
Rezko is awaiting sentencing for scheming to launch a $7 million kickback scheme using clout in the governor's office to pack two state boards with power over big money decisions with members who would take orders from him.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Chicago Looks to Skirt Gun Ruling
The Wall Street Journal
In Chicago, people grieved last week near the bodies of two murder victims. On a recent weekend, more than 50 people were shot in the city.
The day after the Supreme Court cleared a path to overturn this city's ban on handguns—among the toughest in the U.S.—frustrated city officials began Tuesday to consider new measures to circumvent the high court's ruling.
At a tense City Hall meeting packed with citizens holding up photos of children who'd been shot, city aldermen discussed forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance and to undergo criminal background checks and periodic firearms training. They also peppered a firearms-law expert and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis with questions while promising to pass something meaningful.
If the city can pass a dog ordinance that "can protect the public from a dog bite," we should be able to tighten handgun regulations, Alderman Freddrenna Lyle said.
The debate comes at the direction of Mayor Richard Daley, an outspoken critic of gun access who reacted angrily to the Supreme Court decision.
While Mr. Daley has led this city for 21 years and reshaped both its skyline and neighborhoods, he has had far less success halting the gun violence that plagues Chicago lawn care and claims dozens of school-age children each year. On the third weekend in June, more than 50 people were shot and seven killed. The youngest was one year old.
Although Chicago's homicide rate is lower than it was at the height of the gang wars that followed the crack cocaine epidemic of the early 1990s, it is slightly ahead of last year's pace and gun violence remains a prominent, high-stakes dilemma. The homicide rate in New York City is one-third that of Chicago's and the rate in Los Angeles is two-thirds, said Jens Ludwig, director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab. About three-quarters of the murders in the city are committed with a firearm.
The city's gun ban has been only sporadically enforced since being installed 28 years ago. But it has become a rhetorical pillar of Mr. Daley's administration that he regularly invokes after a spike in violence.
On Monday, Mr. Daley lashed out at the Supreme Court, calling the justices hypocrites who work in a building where visitors must walk through metal detectors to enter — protections rarely afforded elsewhere.
Aldermen from the South Side, where gun violence is most pervasive, were even more critical of the court's ruling.
"The decision was totally detached from reality," said Alderman Sharon Denise Dixon, an alderman in Lawndale, which has one of the city's highest rates of violent crime. "I don't believe a Supreme Court justice could live in my ward and come to the same conclusion they did."
At Tuesday's meeting of the City Council's Police and Fire Committee, aldermen suggested a raft of alternatives after the gun ban is expected to be overturned: tracking gun offenders like sex offenders; limiting residents to ownership of a single gun; and banning stores that sell handguns within city limits.
It's not clear whether such measures would pass muster with Chicago's city council, or whether they would withstand legal or constitutional challenges.
Violence in Chicago became a national issue last fall when the video recording of a 16-year-old honor student beaten to death on his walk home from high school was broadcast around the world. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan came to the city to announce new initiatives to cope with the simmering issue of youth violence.
Despite those initiatives, the city's budget is under intense pressure and police vacancies will not be filled this year, Alderman Joe Moore said.
It's widely anticipated that Mr. Daley will run for a record seventh term in February 2011. Though he hasn't formally announced his candidacy, he remains an overwhelming favorite.
Mr. Moore, a longtime critic of the mayor, said a surge in homicides has the potential to destabilize any politician. "When things get bad, any public servant in office is under scrutiny," he said.
Alderman Robert Fioretti said, "We've got to take back our streets" by allocating money to fully staff the police department.
Mr. Daley may be feeling the pressure. Last month at a press conference to show how many guns had been seized, he was asked if the gun ban was truly effective. The mayor responded by lifting a rifle with a bayonet on it and jokingly threatening to shove it up a reporter's rear end. Even by the standards of Mr. Daley's frequently colorful remarks, it raised eyebrows.
It may also reflect a growing sense that a gun ban is no longer viable because police can't be relied upon. In the last two months, two home invaders were stopped by residents who shot intruders with guns they owned.
At a tense City Hall meeting packed with citizens holding up photos of children who'd been shot, city aldermen discussed forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance and to undergo criminal background checks and periodic firearms training. They also peppered a firearms-law expert and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis with questions while promising to pass something meaningful.
If the city can pass a dog ordinance that "can protect the public from a dog bite," we should be able to tighten handgun regulations, Alderman Freddrenna Lyle said.
The debate comes at the direction of Mayor Richard Daley, an outspoken critic of gun access who reacted angrily to the Supreme Court decision.
While Mr. Daley has led this city for 21 years and reshaped both its skyline and neighborhoods, he has had far less success halting the gun violence that plagues Chicago lawn care and claims dozens of school-age children each year. On the third weekend in June, more than 50 people were shot and seven killed. The youngest was one year old.
Although Chicago's homicide rate is lower than it was at the height of the gang wars that followed the crack cocaine epidemic of the early 1990s, it is slightly ahead of last year's pace and gun violence remains a prominent, high-stakes dilemma. The homicide rate in New York City is one-third that of Chicago's and the rate in Los Angeles is two-thirds, said Jens Ludwig, director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab. About three-quarters of the murders in the city are committed with a firearm.
The city's gun ban has been only sporadically enforced since being installed 28 years ago. But it has become a rhetorical pillar of Mr. Daley's administration that he regularly invokes after a spike in violence.
On Monday, Mr. Daley lashed out at the Supreme Court, calling the justices hypocrites who work in a building where visitors must walk through metal detectors to enter — protections rarely afforded elsewhere.
Aldermen from the South Side, where gun violence is most pervasive, were even more critical of the court's ruling.
"The decision was totally detached from reality," said Alderman Sharon Denise Dixon, an alderman in Lawndale, which has one of the city's highest rates of violent crime. "I don't believe a Supreme Court justice could live in my ward and come to the same conclusion they did."
At Tuesday's meeting of the City Council's Police and Fire Committee, aldermen suggested a raft of alternatives after the gun ban is expected to be overturned: tracking gun offenders like sex offenders; limiting residents to ownership of a single gun; and banning stores that sell handguns within city limits.
It's not clear whether such measures would pass muster with Chicago's city council, or whether they would withstand legal or constitutional challenges.
Violence in Chicago became a national issue last fall when the video recording of a 16-year-old honor student beaten to death on his walk home from high school was broadcast around the world. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan came to the city to announce new initiatives to cope with the simmering issue of youth violence.
Despite those initiatives, the city's budget is under intense pressure and police vacancies will not be filled this year, Alderman Joe Moore said.
It's widely anticipated that Mr. Daley will run for a record seventh term in February 2011. Though he hasn't formally announced his candidacy, he remains an overwhelming favorite.
Mr. Moore, a longtime critic of the mayor, said a surge in homicides has the potential to destabilize any politician. "When things get bad, any public servant in office is under scrutiny," he said.
Alderman Robert Fioretti said, "We've got to take back our streets" by allocating money to fully staff the police department.
Mr. Daley may be feeling the pressure. Last month at a press conference to show how many guns had been seized, he was asked if the gun ban was truly effective. The mayor responded by lifting a rifle with a bayonet on it and jokingly threatening to shove it up a reporter's rear end. Even by the standards of Mr. Daley's frequently colorful remarks, it raised eyebrows.
It may also reflect a growing sense that a gun ban is no longer viable because police can't be relied upon. In the last two months, two home invaders were stopped by residents who shot intruders with guns they owned.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Blagojevich Wants Obama to Testify at Trial
The Wall Street Journal
CHICAGO—Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has asked a federal judge to subpoena President Barack Obama to testify at his corruption trial this June.
In a motion filed Thursday, Mr. Blagojevich contends that "President Obama has direct knowledge to allegations made in the indictment."
Mr. Blagojevich has pleaded not guilty to charges that he plotted to sell the Senate seat left vacant by Mr. Obama after he was elected president.
In the 11-page motion, Mr. Blagojevich's attorneys say that Mr. Obama has said no representatives of his had anything to do with alleged deals for the Senate seat. Those statements "contradict the testimony of an important government witness," according to the motion.
The alleged contradictory information had been redacted in Thursday's filing.
Mr. Obama is "the only one who can say if emissaries were sent on his behalf, who those emissaries were, and what, if anything, those emissaries were instructed to do on his behalf," the motion says.
Mr. Blagojevich contends that Mr. Obama may also have pertinent information about Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a government witness in the trial, who was found guilty in 2008 on charges of bribery fraud and money laundering but has not yet been sentenced.
Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama became friendly in 1990 and Mr. Rezko helped Mr. Obama purchase his house in Chicago.
"President Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko is relevant and necessary," the motion says.
All of Mr. Obama's testimony would involve things that happened before he became president so would not involve executive privilege, attorneys for Mr. Blagojevich contend.
It is highly unusual for a sitting president to testify at a corruption trial but not unprecedented. Attorneys for Mr. Blagojevich cite cases in which Thomas Jefferson was ordered to comply with a subpoena in the trial of Aaron Burr and a deposition given by President Ulysses S. Grant in a criminal case.
More recently, in 1974 the Supreme Court held that President Richard Nixon was obligated to comply with a subpoena in criminal trials of his appointees resulting from the Watergate scandal and President Bill Clinton was deposed in 1996 in two criminal proceedings.
In deference to Mr. Obama's busy schedule and security demands, attorneys for Mr. Blagojevich said he can testify via video conference or deposed outside of court.
In a motion filed Thursday, Mr. Blagojevich contends that "President Obama has direct knowledge to allegations made in the indictment."
Mr. Blagojevich has pleaded not guilty to charges that he plotted to sell the Senate seat left vacant by Mr. Obama after he was elected president.
In the 11-page motion, Mr. Blagojevich's attorneys say that Mr. Obama has said no representatives of his had anything to do with alleged deals for the Senate seat. Those statements "contradict the testimony of an important government witness," according to the motion.
The alleged contradictory information had been redacted in Thursday's filing.
Mr. Obama is "the only one who can say if emissaries were sent on his behalf, who those emissaries were, and what, if anything, those emissaries were instructed to do on his behalf," the motion says.
Mr. Blagojevich contends that Mr. Obama may also have pertinent information about Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a government witness in the trial, who was found guilty in 2008 on charges of bribery fraud and money laundering but has not yet been sentenced.
Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama became friendly in 1990 and Mr. Rezko helped Mr. Obama purchase his house in Chicago.
"President Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko is relevant and necessary," the motion says.
All of Mr. Obama's testimony would involve things that happened before he became president so would not involve executive privilege, attorneys for Mr. Blagojevich contend.
It is highly unusual for a sitting president to testify at a corruption trial but not unprecedented. Attorneys for Mr. Blagojevich cite cases in which Thomas Jefferson was ordered to comply with a subpoena in the trial of Aaron Burr and a deposition given by President Ulysses S. Grant in a criminal case.
More recently, in 1974 the Supreme Court held that President Richard Nixon was obligated to comply with a subpoena in criminal trials of his appointees resulting from the Watergate scandal and President Bill Clinton was deposed in 1996 in two criminal proceedings.
In deference to Mr. Obama's busy schedule and security demands, attorneys for Mr. Blagojevich said he can testify via video conference or deposed outside of court.
Monday, April 12, 2010
WWU Professor Pulled Back into '94 Murder Trial
The Seattle Times
In 1994, Carolyn Nielsen was a graduate student at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism when she wrote stories that questioned the trial and subsequent murder conviction of a 14-year-old Chicago boy.
In 1994, Carolyn Nielsen was a graduate student at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism when she wrote stories that questioned the trial and subsequent murder conviction of a 14-year-old Chicago boy.
Nothing came of it then. The boy, Thaddeus Jimenez, was sent to prison and Nielsen went on to become an assistant professor of journalism at Western Washington University.
But last year, after 16 years behind bars, Jimenez was exonerated of the crime by a group of lawyers who say Nielsen's reporting spurred their interest in the case. Jimenez, now free, has sued the Chicago Police Department for false arrest, claiming he was framed.
Nielsen was ecstatic at the exoneration, writing in her personal blog at the time that she had stayed in touch with Jimenez and his family over the years, and that Jimenez himself had called to say he was free. "It was the only instance in my journalism career in which I switched from reporter to advocate," she wrote on May 4, 2009.
"More than 14 years later, I still have my original draft, my notes and letters TJ [Jimenez] sent me when I interviewed him via mail," she continued.
That sentence caught the attention of lawyers representing the Chicago police officers being sued by Jimenez. Earlier this month they subpoenaed the documents.
On March 16, Nielsen called one of the officers' lawyers in Chicago and "requested several more weeks to respond to the subpoena," according to court documents.
When the attorney asked Nielsen if she had any relevant documents — not letting on that he had already read her blog — he claimed in a sworn affidavit that she became "very evasive."
The attorney, in a sworn affidavit, said he returned to look at Nielsen's blog and found the sentence had been deleted. The officers' lawyers worried Nielsen might attempt to destroy the notes, so they sought a court order protecting them in U.S. District Court in Seattle.
The officers believe the notes or letters may contain material that could help their defense, showing for instance that they had probable cause to investigate or even arrest Jimenez at the time, even if he hadn't committed the crime.
They cite as an example a letter introduced at Jimenez's 1994 trial in which he wrote a girlfriend that he was going to have a friend stop a witness from testifying "in anyway he has to, even if he has to kill him. It won't mean anything to me. And it only takes the pull of a trigger."
The lawyers for the officers hope to find similar documents that could be used to support the arrest of Jimenez.
Jimenez was 13 when he was arrested and charged with the fatal street shooting of an 18-year-old Chicago man.
Despite evidence that someone else was responsible — including a surreptitiously recorded confession by the killer and the statements of the killer's companion — Jimenez was charged, convicted after two trials and sentenced to 45 years in prison.
The case caught the attention of lawyers from the Northwestern Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions in 2005. The following year two of the state's key witnesses recanted, including a young man who said police dragged him out of his bed in the middle of the night and interrogated him for hours — he was 14 at the time — until he agreed to say Jimenez was the shooter.
Last May, the Cook County, Ill., State's Attorney's Office filed a motion with Jimenez's lawyers seeking to vacate the conviction. Within hours, another man was taken into custody for the killing.
Jimenez sued the department and six specific officers who were involved in the investigation, alleging that he was framed.
The attorneys in Chicago defending the officers hired Seattle lawyers Anne Bremner and James Lynch, who filed the Seattle lawsuit.
On Thursday, Judge Marsha Pechman issued an order to Nielsen to "preserve all documents responsive to the defendant's subpoena." The judge also ruled that Nielsen has the right to challenge the subpoena.
Eric Stahl, one of Nielsen's attorneys, said Friday that Nielsen intends to fight the subpoena and will claim reporter's privilege regarding the letters and notes.
While there is no federal reporter's shield law, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that journalists enjoy some protection in revealing sources or notes, particularly if the material can be gathered elsewhere. Stahl has said the Chicago lawyers must show they can't get the material anywhere else before Nielsen can be asked to turn it over.
"It's our opinion that all of this material was gathered in the course of her being a journalist, and that a shield should apply," said Stahl, who works for the firm Davis Wright Tremaine, which represents The Seattle Times.
Nielsen said the whole affair is an overreaction.
In a telephone interview earlier this week, and in filings in U.S. District Court, she acknowledged she has the documents and promises their safekeeping.
"I am not quibbling with the preservation of anything," she said. "I was not evasive ... There were some things I just didn't think it was wise to talk to him about," she said.
Bremner said the whole thing could have been avoided if Nielsen hadn't removed that sentence referring to the notes and letters from her blog.
Nielsen declined to talk specifically about that. Nielsen would not say what is in the documents she has, or whether she will challenge the subpoena, but hinted that she's willing to fight.
"It doesn't matter what is in them," she said. "As a reporter, my notes are my notes."
In 1994, Carolyn Nielsen was a graduate student at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism when she wrote stories that questioned the trial and subsequent murder conviction of a 14-year-old Chicago boy.
Nothing came of it then. The boy, Thaddeus Jimenez, was sent to prison and Nielsen went on to become an assistant professor of journalism at Western Washington University.
But last year, after 16 years behind bars, Jimenez was exonerated of the crime by a group of lawyers who say Nielsen's reporting spurred their interest in the case. Jimenez, now free, has sued the Chicago Police Department for false arrest, claiming he was framed.
Nielsen was ecstatic at the exoneration, writing in her personal blog at the time that she had stayed in touch with Jimenez and his family over the years, and that Jimenez himself had called to say he was free. "It was the only instance in my journalism career in which I switched from reporter to advocate," she wrote on May 4, 2009.
"More than 14 years later, I still have my original draft, my notes and letters TJ [Jimenez] sent me when I interviewed him via mail," she continued.
That sentence caught the attention of lawyers representing the Chicago police officers being sued by Jimenez. Earlier this month they subpoenaed the documents.
On March 16, Nielsen called one of the officers' lawyers in Chicago and "requested several more weeks to respond to the subpoena," according to court documents.
When the attorney asked Nielsen if she had any relevant documents — not letting on that he had already read her blog — he claimed in a sworn affidavit that she became "very evasive."
The attorney, in a sworn affidavit, said he returned to look at Nielsen's blog and found the sentence had been deleted. The officers' lawyers worried Nielsen might attempt to destroy the notes, so they sought a court order protecting them in U.S. District Court in Seattle.
The officers believe the notes or letters may contain material that could help their defense, showing for instance that they had probable cause to investigate or even arrest Jimenez at the time, even if he hadn't committed the crime.
They cite as an example a letter introduced at Jimenez's 1994 trial in which he wrote a girlfriend that he was going to have a friend stop a witness from testifying "in anyway he has to, even if he has to kill him. It won't mean anything to me. And it only takes the pull of a trigger."
The lawyers for the officers hope to find similar documents that could be used to support the arrest of Jimenez.
Jimenez was 13 when he was arrested and charged with the fatal street shooting of an 18-year-old Chicago man.
Despite evidence that someone else was responsible — including a surreptitiously recorded confession by the killer and the statements of the killer's companion — Jimenez was charged, convicted after two trials and sentenced to 45 years in prison.
The case caught the attention of lawyers from the Northwestern Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions in 2005. The following year two of the state's key witnesses recanted, including a young man who said police dragged him out of his bed in the middle of the night and interrogated him for hours — he was 14 at the time — until he agreed to say Jimenez was the shooter.
Last May, the Cook County, Ill., State's Attorney's Office filed a motion with Jimenez's lawyers seeking to vacate the conviction. Within hours, another man was taken into custody for the killing.
Jimenez sued the department and six specific officers who were involved in the investigation, alleging that he was framed.
The attorneys in Chicago defending the officers hired Seattle lawyers Anne Bremner and James Lynch, who filed the Seattle lawsuit.
On Thursday, Judge Marsha Pechman issued an order to Nielsen to "preserve all documents responsive to the defendant's subpoena." The judge also ruled that Nielsen has the right to challenge the subpoena.
Eric Stahl, one of Nielsen's attorneys, said Friday that Nielsen intends to fight the subpoena and will claim reporter's privilege regarding the letters and notes.
While there is no federal reporter's shield law, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that journalists enjoy some protection in revealing sources or notes, particularly if the material can be gathered elsewhere. Stahl has said the Chicago lawyers must show they can't get the material anywhere else before Nielsen can be asked to turn it over.
"It's our opinion that all of this material was gathered in the course of her being a journalist, and that a shield should apply," said Stahl, who works for the firm Davis Wright Tremaine, which represents The Seattle Times.
Nielsen said the whole affair is an overreaction.
In a telephone interview earlier this week, and in filings in U.S. District Court, she acknowledged she has the documents and promises their safekeeping.
"I am not quibbling with the preservation of anything," she said. "I was not evasive ... There were some things I just didn't think it was wise to talk to him about," she said.
Bremner said the whole thing could have been avoided if Nielsen hadn't removed that sentence referring to the notes and letters from her blog.
Nielsen declined to talk specifically about that. Nielsen would not say what is in the documents she has, or whether she will challenge the subpoena, but hinted that she's willing to fight.
"It doesn't matter what is in them," she said. "As a reporter, my notes are my notes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
