Will judge give Cochran a ‘get out of jail, free’ card in corruption case?

It will be intriguing to see just how a federal judge rules with regards to former 20^th Ward Alderman Willie Cochran, whom federal prosecutors say used funds meant for ward activities instead for personal use.

COCHRAN: Doesn't want to go to prison

Cochran has entered a “guilty” plea, and as expected is hoping his judge will be sympathetic. Although some may say “delusional” would be a more accurate descriptive term.

FOR COCHRAN IS the alderman who earlier this year sent his attorney a written legal brief in which he argued that prison time would be totally inappropriate. But because he apparently got confused in sending out e-mail, a copy was sent to the U.S. Probation Office.

For as Cochran stated, his actions would constitute political corruption. And history shows us that threats of incarceration haven’t done a thing discourage Chicago aldermen (or elected officials from anywhere, actually) from doing things that federal prosecutors believe do not serve the public good.

How else to explain the dozens of former aldermen who wound up ending their time in public service with a prison stint.

Cochran argued that a period of home confinement (say, six months or so) would be a more appropriate punishment for the alderman who solicited donations to provide financial support for a back-to-school picnic, a senior citizen event for Valentine’s Day and other holiday-type events.

PROSECUTORS, HOWEVER, SAY that Cochran took the contributions, then used the money for personal expenses.

Which is why they whacked him with a criminal indictment, resulting in Cochran entering a “guilty” plea back in March. No trial. A chance at a lesser sentence.

Sometimes, it seems these people don't understand the law

Except that Cochran seems to want us to think he didn’t do it – even though he submitted the guilty plea. It’s as though he doesn’t realize the significance of what it means to plead guilty. He’s going to have to take some sort of a legal blow when he comes up for sentencing on June 24.

Which is why the Chicago Sun-Times has reported this week that federal prosecutors are now demanding that Cochran get prison time.

THEY WANT HIM to get something along the lines of an 18-month prison sentence, which they say is close to the maximum sentence he could get. While admitting that if Cochran keeps trying a legal strategy along the lines of “I’m guilty, but I didn’t do it,” they’ll go for the max.

As in two full years of prison time. Which would put Cochran in line with the many other aldermen who wound up having to answer to the title of “inmate,” rather than “counselor.”

It would seem that Cochran has a tenuous grasp of what the law says, and means.

Which shouldn’t be surprising. Because one of the things that has often amazed me through all the years I have written about governing and the making of public policy is just how little officials truly comprehend legal issues.

EVEN THOUGH MANY of them are law school graduates and are certified to practice law, it would seem what they truly grasp are the mechanizations of politics. Which often differs greatly from what prosecutors will accept as legitimate.

These people want to criminalize govt.

Hence, the idea that some 30-plus aldermen ended up as criminals. That’s going back to 1973 – I’m sure the tally would be higher if you pushed the timeline back.

Although then again, legal interpretations used to be looser so that actions we’d now claim are criminal would have been regarded as legitimate, way back when.

Which may well be why federal prosecutors said they plan to enter into evidence the oaths of office that Cochran took when he became an alderman – perhaps they think elected officials need a reminder that the old cliché “talk is cheap” doesn’t apply, and that there’s a meaning to all the gibberish about “upholding” the federal and state constitutions.

  -30-

Would Chicago be better off if Van Dyke were to get a bench trial?

Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago police officer about to go on trial for a 2014 shooting death of a teenager, has until Friday to decide whether he wants his fate determined by a jury of his so-called peers, or by a judge.

GAUGHAN: Will he, or jurors, decide fate?

I can’t help but think we as a society would be better off if he were to get a bench trial – as in letting a judge decide his fate based solely on the merits of the law.

IT’S NOT THAT I have all that much faith in the mindset of the judiciary. It’s more that I suspect there’s no way any group of individuals will be capable of putting aside their emotions with this case.

We’re more likely to avoid offending the sensibilities of our society if we put this case into the hands of a judge.

Not that we can avoid offending people. When it comes to Van Dyke and the death of Laquan McDonald, there are going to be people who will be grossly offended – no matter how the case is resolved.

As things stand going into Friday, a 12-member jury has been picked, and officials say they expect four alternates who could be called upon if one of the dozen jurors winds up having to withdraw could be chosen soon.

WHICH IS WHY Judge Vincent Gaughan has given Van Dyke and his legal counsel until Friday to make the decision – jury trial, or bench trial?

If Van Dyke ultimately decides on a bench trial, then the outcome will be solely up to Gaughan. All of the jurors who have thus far been chosen will be dismissed – and they won’t ever have to make a decision on what should become of the cop who got captured on video firing 16 shots into McDonald’s body.

VAN DYKE:A decision to make by Friday

Defense, of course, sees this as a case of the teenager wielding a knife while walking down the street and behaving in ways that made it seem as though he was a threat to the public.

It’s apparent that Van Dyke took actions that resulted in McDonald’s death; although police officers are given authority to use deadly force on the job. Which makes this a trial solely about determining the line between justifiable homicide and murder.

IT’S SAD THAT this is going to become a race-tinged case. There already are those upset that the 12-member jury apparently has seven white people, three Latinos, one Asian and ONLY one black person.

The trial hasn’t even begun, and we’re already getting the accusations that defense attorneys went out of their way to eliminate as many black people from jury consideration as possible.

I don’t care if all four alternates wind up being African-American; we’ll get the claims that a group of white people refused to administer justice against a white cop. Although there will be others who will rant and rage about the notion of Van Dyke being prosecuted BECAUSE he’s white.

They’ll think acquittal is the only possible outcome that won’t be a travesty.

THAT IS WHY I’d prefer this to be a bench trial. Even though I’m sure the masses of Chicagoans who have taken an interest in this case will be prepared to decimate the legal reputation of Gaughan if he doesn’t ultimately rule in their favor with regards to Van Dyke. I actually have more faith in a judge to make such a decision than so-called civilians, and to understand the nuances of "the law" than some individual who likely is peeved that his/her life is being disrupted for a few weeks by being called upon for jury duty,

McDONALD: Chgo gets to relive his death

Because for every person determined to think Van Dyke is being unjustly prosecuted, there are also masses determined to believe that the only reasonable outcome is for Van Dyke to be brutalized while serving a prison term.

This truly is an ugly trial; one that will bring out all the nasty elements of our society. A part of me thinks we’d have been better off if Gaughan had accepted the suggestions that this trial venue be transferred to somewhere else.

It also makes me all the more grateful that my own name didn’t get called for consideration of jury duty because (with two uncles who served as Chicago police officers) I honestly don’t know how I’d have handled the questioning over whether I could be impartial in deciding between the gun-wielding cop or the knife-wielding teen.

  -30-

Will ‘da Judge’ buy “Fast Eddie” claim his witnesses are too old to remember?

I understand that Edward R. Vrdolyak has no desire to go to prison.

VRDOLYAK: Trying to get charges dismissed

The one-time Cook County Democratic chairman and City Council member who led the vocal opposition to then-Mayor Harold Washington has already done one stint as a “guest” of the government, and sure doesn’t want to go back there ever again.

BUT I FIND myself intrigued by the line of defense that Vrdolyak is trying to put up for himself.

Vrdolyak spent the bulk of 2011 in a federal prison work camp in Terre Haute, Ind., following his conviction on charges related to real estate transactions in the Gold Coast neighborhood.

Two years ago, he was hit with another round of indictments – for his involvement in the settlement of a national lawsuit against the tobacco industry back in the 1990s. It resulted in a $9.2 billion payout by “Big Tobacco,” and Vrdolyak managed to enrich himself significantly.

So much so that federal prosecutors say he did too well, to the point of being criminal. They use the word “unauthorized” to describe it.

BUT VRDOLYAK CONTENDS he didn’t do anything illegal, and in fact had the blessing of political people (including then-Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan) for his conduct.

WASHINGTON: Eddie's legacy exceed Harold

He’s trying to get a judge to dismiss the charges, with his own attorneys filing motions claiming that the people who could testify under oath that Vrdolyak’s legal activities were truly legitimate aren’t capable of doing so.

They point out one person who was fully aware of Vrdolyak is now dead, while another suffers from severe dementia. A third would be Jim Ryan himself, although the one-time Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate suffers from his own ailments that would make it impossible for him to be called upon to testify.

All this may be true. But I will be amazed if any judge out there would be inclined to dismiss the case on these grounds.

BECAUSE IT WOULD truly create a circumstance where someone could escape the legal system and “justice” because of the passage of time.

RYAN: Could Jim 'clear' Vrdolyak?

And when it comes to Vrdolyak, I’m sure the kind of people most eager to see him obtain another criminal conviction and prison term (one most likely long enough that the 80-year-old would die in prison) will not want to allow for any reason to come up that would let him escape justice.

For the politico known as “Fast Eddie” is the man who will forevermore be remembered for the way he openly led a resistance to Washington’s election in 1983 as the city’s first black mayor.

That was something some people would want forevermore celebrated. The fact that Vrdolyak was able to tie up in knots just about everything Washington tried to accomplish during the first few years of his mayoral term is something they will forevermore be bitter about.

TO THEM, THE only true justice will be if Vrdolyak gains as his political legacy a record of recidivism. To become one of the few people in Chicago political people who wind up with multiple convictions and prison terms would be the only true justice to those individuals.

Seriously, most people with political corruption convictions wind up withering away into nothingness. It would be Vrdolyak and someone like one-time alderman Ambrosio Medrano who would have records of returns to prison.

MEDRANO: In Vrdolyak's league?

But a part of me can’t help but wonder if Vrdolyak’s attorneys have a point about the 20-year delay between the actions and the bringing of an indictment “dramatically, and even fatally hindering (Vrdolyak) from establishing that fact to the jury.”

All of which makes me think no matter how a judge ultimately rules, this is going to be a criminal case that will leave some people seriously p-o’ed about its outcome and complaining for life about the lack of justice.

  -30-

Law enforcement types the biggest control freaks because they can be

Dealing with police and court officials for the past quarter century has let me know there are varying personalities amongst those who devote their lives to protecting the public safety.

Some have a strong sense of public duty, while a few probably ought to be locked up. And the bulk of them are no more intelligent than the rest of us – even though they’re doing a difficult job that many of us couldn’t handle.

BUT IT DOES create a sense among many that they want to exist in their own world; without the prying eyes of the public monitoring what they do. Just like the Army – which often gives off a sense that they’d like to handle the public by issuing a statement saying war was declared, then issuing a follow-up statement years later saying the war was won!

So a pair of news stories I stumbled across on Friday were not the least bit surprising – the Chicago Tribune reported how police in Fox Lake are upset that the coroner in Lake County, Ill., is giving out details related to the slaying earlier this month of a police lieutenant.

While the Chicago Sun-Times reported how the Cook County state’s attorney’s office is now relying on the grand jury system to handle criminal cases involving firearms, rather than bringing them before a judge for a preliminary hearing.

The latter puts the early stages of prosecution under the control of prosecutors, rather than judges who might find flaws with cases. While the Fox Lake police have tried saying little to nothing about the case, only for reporter-types to wind up getting details from the coroner’s office.

IN THE CASE of the Fox Lake police, they have tried saying they want little information to get out because they supposedly want to have details that only a criminal suspect would know.

So he (or she, I shouldn’t make assumptions) can inadvertently trap him/herself in their own words.

So while the police have said multiple shots were fired in the incident that killed Joseph Gliniewicz, the coroner has said the officer was shot in the torso. Although even the coroner has been hesitant to say much more.

It’s not a flood of lurid detail coming from the coroner, but it is enough that the Fox Lake police felt the need to issue a statement calling the coroner “unprofessional” and “completely irresponsible.”

PROBABLY BECAUSE THE police only want to have to make a statement saying that an arrest has been made – something they haven’t been able to do yet.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the coroner said one reason he has given out as much detail as he did was because of some rumors that had become public. He wanted to correct the record. Is that unprofessional?

Or could it be a police department willing to let the public think nonsense so long as it benefits them. Similar to one story I once covered where authorities claimed to have the suspect on video tape committing an act of vandalism – and it turned out during the bench trial that the video depicted 23 different people doing various things!

Not as specific as police wanted us to think.

OF COURSE, THESE cases get into the court system, where there also are officials who want things done their way, The Chicago Sun-Times said that State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez told her staff earlier this year to take gun cases to grand juries to get indictments – rather than having a judge hold a preliminary hearing.

Such a hearing gives a judge a chance to rule on whether the police were justified in arresting someone – or if the charges before the court are totally bogus. A judge can always be predictable, but grand juries give us that old cliché, “A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”

The state’s attorney’s office told the newspaper that they’re merely trying to be more consistent with the way they handle criminal cases involving firearms. Which sounds noble, particularly since police are interested in creating cases that will wind up with convictions.

A defendant being indicted for a gun offense sounds ominous. Unlike a case being tossed out because a judge decided the evidence to support charges was too weak to take seriously!

  -30-

Blagojevich legal request not unusual, but also not likely to be granted

During the just over a quarter-of-a-century that I have been a reporter-type person and have covered legal proceedings, I have come to the realization that judges bear a strong resemblance to King Louis XVI.

BLAGOJEVICH: Yet another legal appeal

Or at least the version of the French king that was portrayed by Mel Brooks in “History of the World, Part I.”

THE GUY WHO behaved in whatever a manner his whim felt appropriate, constantly telling us, “It’s good to be the king.”

Judges base their decisions on the law, but are given the authority to make their interpretations based on what they think the law means. That is the Democratic way – they serve as a check on political people who exceed their authority.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that the nine justices who comprise the Court of Appeals in Chicago (who oversee cases throughout the Midwestern U.S.) probably won’t be all that enthused about the request made this week by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

A three-judge panel recently rejected many of the grounds upon which Blagojevich was challenging his criminal convictions on multiple charges – the ones that got him nearly a 14-year prison term out in Colorado.

BLAGOJEVICH ASKED FOR the entire appeals court to reconsider that ruling. Which makes sense from Blagojevich’s point of view – he wants out of prison sooner rather than later.

He’s following the legal procedure, give the Court of Appeals a chance to reconsider before he takes the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Which is probably less likely to take this case seriously than the Court of Appeals.

If judges are like Mel Brooks' King Louis XVI,...

Judges usually want to respect the actions of their judicial counterparts. They would prefer to think that all legal people have an appreciation for the law. But they will take actions to alter them if they feel it absolutely necessary.

SO WHAT’S LIKELY to happen with Blagojevich’s request for a rehearing?

Blagojevich is taking the viewpoint that the rules under which he was found guilty are so strict that no political person could avoid conviction – unless they manage to avoid the glare of a prosecutorial type.

 

... does that make Blagojevich just like Brooks' piss boy?

“The jury instructions used to convict me in my case are not the law. It makes the standard so low that any politician can be jailed at the whim of an ambitious prosecutor,” Blagojevich wrote, in a statement published by a public relations firm that is working toward his eventual release from prison.

Of course, there are some people whose view of electoral politics is such that they probably like the idea of everybody being put away behind bars – they’re usually the type who can’t stand the idea of anybody’s ideas other than their own being represented.

NOT THAT I’M convinced Blagojevich’s appeal is going anywhere. Because judges by nature have that “It’s good to be the King” mentality to them.

They’re not required to rule on the merits of Blagojevich’s request. They could just as easily issue a brief statement saying “no” and leave it at that. They certainly don’t have to explain why they don’t think this case is worth reconsidering.

And the chance that Blagojevich can convince a majority of the full Court of Appeals? It’s a long-shot. I don’t know that the bulk of the justices are willing to suddenly think that Milorod is a victim – when the reality is that the bulk of society is more than willing to wish that Blagojevich get the harshest of penalties possible (and is upset that the judicial panel went so far as to strike down five of the charges for which he was found guilty).

But then again, the best stories are the ones that come totally out of left field – so unexpected that everyone’s initial reaction is silence! Then shock, and anger. Furious anger!

  -30-

Another blast from Chi political past; could ‘Fast Eddie’ return to prison?

It almost feels like the “G-men” of Chicago are engaging in Old Home Week lately.

VRDOLYAK: From before the feds paid him mind

First, we learn that former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert – one of the few Illinoisans to ever rise to that exulted position – was indicted on charges he violated federal laws concerning bank withdrawals; supposedly to come up with money to pay off someone else to keep quiet about long-ago wrongdoings.

NOW, WE’RE GETTING word that former 10^th Ward Alderman and Cook County Democratic Chairman-who-turned-Republican Edward R. Vrdolyak is the subject of federal investigators.

As of now, Vrdolyak isn’t charged with anything.

But Daniel Soso, an attorney from suburban Alsip, is indicted on federal tax evasion charges. The Chicago Sun-Times reported Sunday that the Soso indictment makes reference to an “Individual A” who may have been involved.

And the newspaper said it has sources contending that Vrdolyak is the aforementioned “Individual A” being referred to.

I PREVIOUSLY MADE reference to a similarity between Hastert and Vrdolyak in that both came to the attention of federal prosecutors long after their time on government payrolls was complete.

Vrdolyak already has served a 10-month prison term for charges contending that he arranged for a kickback in the sale price of a Gold Coast neighborhood building, in addition to any legal fees he would have been entitled to for his legal services.

MEDRANO: Not many pols get 2nd conviction

Is he now going to face the possibility of another prosecution? This one likely to produce a significant prison term? Is someone determined to see that Vrdolyak leaves this mortal realm of existence by being pronounced dead in a prison infirmary?

The newspaper says the latest case relates to the 1998 settlement of Illinois’ lawsuit against tobacco companies – a $9.1 billion payment, which means significant money.

PROSECUTORS ALLEGE THAT Vrdolyak, although not registered as one of the attorneys involved in the case, were paid a portion of the settlement; and did not comply with the regulations set by the state Attorney General’s office for receiving such payments.

HASTERT: Another pol facing not-relaxing retirement

So what should we think? Did Vrdolyak somehow get payments for work done under the table? Or for helping somebody to meet somebody else connected to the case?

We really don’t know what it is that Vrdolyak is purported to have done; other than that the “I” word is being flouted about – and that if he were to be prosecuted for something a second time, it would put “Fast Eddie” in a unique situation.

He and Abrosio Medrano, who also has separate convictions and wound up being returned to prison for a much lengthier sentence than his first stint of incarceration.

IS THAT GOING to become the Vrdolyak legacy? Or is he going to get the support of the East Side and other 10^th Ward residents who once relied on him to be their voice at City Hall – and some of whom still think of him as the person who “saved” their neighborhood.

Of course, what he was saving them from was what was represented by the election of Harold Washington as mayor. Which is why I’m sure there are some people who are more than glad to see Vrdolyak suffer these legal predicaments.

What this case is all going to come down to is trying to figure out what exactly constitutes a legal fee? Why shouldn’t Vrdolyak have received some money if he truly did legal work? I’ve already seen some Facebook commentary implying that prosecutors should, “leave Eddie alone.”

It is interesting that Vrdolyak’s attorney told the Sun-Times that the case was so long ago (17 years) and that his client is now 77; some people will feel sympathy for “Fast Eddie.” But will more be eager to see him carted off to prison yet again?

  -30-

My civic duty, soaking in hours of boredom, just in case I’m needed

By the time you read this, I most likely am sitting in a room at the Cook County Criminal Courts building, being kept isolated from any “real” people and trying to justify in my mind how to keep myself from losing my mental faculties.

Yes, I have jury duty!

TUESDAY IS THE day that I am supposed to report to that grand old courthouse in the Little Village neighborhood where generations of Chicagoans have had JUSTICE!!! dealt upon them for whatever criminal offenses the state’s attorney was able to justify.

I’m supposed to be at the courthouse, most likely for the entire day – and always the possibility of several days thereafter. Although I won’t know for sure until day’s end whether my service on behalf of the people of Illinois will be complete.

I can’t say I’m looking forward to Tuesday, although I have to admit it is made a little bit easier by being employed, so to speak, as a freelance writer.

I don’t have a company to whom I have to explain why I can’t show up for work on this day. I won’t have some snide nitwit of a boss thinking it is a major inconvenience for him that I can’t be present at the office as though my life is supposed to center around making him look good professionally.

THEN AGAIN, IT is a day in which I have to focus on the prospect of being called to service to decide the fate of a person who happens to face a criminal charge or two. As in I can’t do anything that might actually earn me some money with which to live.

In short, I exist on Tuesday to collect that check of $17.20 that the Cook County sheriff’s department will issue to me and to all the other would-be jurors – to cover the cost (as they estimate it) of our transportation costs to and from the courthouse.

In my case, I took a combination of Metra and CTA “el” trains to get myself to the 26^th Street courthouse. Unlike all those suburban Cook County court facilities with ample parking, I’m at the building where street parking is limited, and the few nearby lots are ridiculously expensive.

I’d rather deal with the transit transfers in order to make the trip.

I SUSPECT I have an advantage over all my other would-be jurors in that I have been in enough courthouses – including this very building where I was once the regular assigned reporter back when I wrote for the now-defunct City News Bureau.

I also comprehend the degree to which I’m being kept in isolation to prevent any less-than-reputable attorney from trying to influence my thought process.

Although the most intense judicial outburst I ever personally heard from a judge upset about jury contact involved a courtroom sketch artist (you know, the ones who do the quickie drawings on television news) who had the gall to try to say “Hi” to a juror.

I’m prepared to sit for hours on end on Tuesday, to see whether or not I need to go through the process of being grilled by prosecution and defense attorneys to see if I’m fit to have a say in whether or not a criminal defendant deserves to lose his freedom.

I DON’T KNOW whether my reportorial experience having covered courtrooms across the county makes a difference – although I wouldn’t be surprised if some insecure attorney-type person would think I “know” too much and can’t be trusted to be impartial.

Then again, some attorney-type might enjoy the idea of inconvenience to a reporter-type person and go out of his way to pick me. I really don’t know whether I’ll make it onto a jury, or have my own freedom back on Wednesday.

For the record, I have done jury duty twice before in my life – and have never actually been picked. One of those times, I didn’t get rejected until something like 8:30 p.m., and didn’t get back home until just before 11 p.m.

I’m braced for another day just like that. Which will go a long ways toward explaining my grumpier-than-usual temperament on Wednesday.

  -30-

What attorney who’s worth anything doesn’t have a conflict of interest?

As I write this, I can hear the moans and groans of those individuals who as recently as a few days ago were convinced that they finally had that crook, otherwise known as “Mr. Speaker,” just where they wanted him.

MADIGAN: Breathing easier

Seriously, I came across several comments on the Internet (all anonymous) Thursday and Friday that had as their theme the idea that former federal prosecutor Patrick Collins was going to be the guy who – after all these decades – would catch Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, D-Chicago, in some sort of act that would send him off to a federal prison.

NOT THAT ANY of these people had a clue what this illegal act would turn out to be. In fact, I sense for them what ought to be “illegal” about Madigan is that he has the “D” after his name, instead of an “R.”

But they want him, by any means necessary. And Collins is the guy who gets credit for putting former Gov. George Ryan in prison for all those years.

So how disappointed the ideologues likely are because Collins on Monday said he’s not available to do any investigation of Metra and its former CEO – who allegedly engaged in assorted political hiring and other inappropriate behavior; some of which was supposedly done at the request of Madigan.

I will be the first to admit that I don’t know anything specifically about this particular investigation – other than that Collins was supposedly going to be involved.

BUT COLLINS’ LAW firm, Perkins Coie, let it be known Sunday that it has a “potential conflict” in being involved with this case, and that Collins himself is not available to be involved in this matter.

The Chicago Tribune reported Monday that an initial check on Collins showed no problems, but that the law firm later learned of “additional conflict issues.” Which is purposefully vague.

COLLINS: Stepping aside voluntarily

The fact that Collins won’t be involved in the case, after all, means he will be able to get away without telling us what the potential problem was.

But it does mean that the “investigation” into Metra and former CEO Alex Clifford is going to have to wait until an attorney can be found who is capable of conducting an investigation without there being some perception that he (or she) is biased in favor of Madigan or Metra.

WHICH COULD TURN out to be difficult.

One of the issues involved is that Madigan has been involved in the Springfield political and Chicago legal communities for so long that it is hard to envision anybody who would be absolutely neutral whenever his name comes up. The idea of a completely-nonpartisan investigator may not be possible.

Take into account the case involving Richard “R.J.” Vanecko; the nephew of former Mayor Richard M. Daley and also of Democratic gubernatorial hopeful William Daley.

Remember how his criminal case was originally assigned to Judge Arthur Hill – who voluntarily backed away because he admitted his legal career owed significant ties to Richard M. back when he was the Cook County state’s attorney?

OFFICIALS SOUGHT OUT a judge from outside of Cook County, and Maureen McIntyre of McHenry County ultimately got assigned to the case. She remains on it, even though the Chicago Sun-Times came up with a batch of allegations concerning she and her ex-husband that makes her appear to be less-than-ideal.

If anything, we tend to have a legal system that gives us “justice” despite the characteristics of the individuals who work in the system.

Which is why Madigan may be able to breathe a bit easier these days concerning this Metra stuff. It may well turn out that any future attorney who gets dragged into conducting this investigation is going to be scrutinized so intensely (that’s “scrootened,” in former Mayor Daley speak) that they may decide the duties aren’t worth the hassle.

  -30-

Court quirks; is everybody broke?

When the federal government decides that its law enforcement types want to single you out, it is an expensive proposition.

Which is why I can’t help but see the truth in what was former Cook County Board President Todd Stroger’s initial reaction to learning that his former press spokesman and childhood friend now faces an indictment in U.S. District Court.

ACCORDING TO THE Chicago Sun-Times (but not the Chicago Tribune), the Stroger reaction was to say, “That’s too bad because he’ll have to spend money on lawyers.”

Some people are interpreting that comment as some sort of vacuous remark on the part of Stroger, the younger. While others are going out of their way to stretch out an interpretation that claims it is a virtual admission that he will probably have to spend money on lawyers someday.

I just see it as a truthful statement. It might well be the most honest thing that has come out of a political person’s mouth all week.

For 48-year-old Eugene Mullins is going to find his life turned upside down, now that he has to defend himself against a multi-count indictment along with other people.

IT IS LIKELY that all of them will wind up taking each other down – which is the big reason that federal prosecutors like to have trials with multiple defendants.

The confusion over who did what often makes jurors think that everybody did something wrong, so everybody goes down.

And if any of them had any money to begin with, it invariably gets eaten up by legal expenses and the cost of trying to avoid prison.

I still recall former state Treasurer Jerry Cosentino, who back in the 1990s had his own legal problems and wound up being found guilty. But he managed to avoid a prison term because of his advanced age (which is what William Cellini wishes for these days, but that’s a story for another day).

HE ALSO DIED broke. He lost his house. The only thing that prevented him from being homeless was that his daughter took him in during the final years of his life.

Mullins will soon find himself in a similar situation.

In fact, some already are in that situation even though their criminal proceedings have barely started.

For former Cook County Commissioner Joseph Mario Moreno and former alderman Ambrosio Medrano were in court this week on their own corruption charges.

BUT UNLIKE THE attorneys who seem to feed off of political people facing corruption charges, none of them are swarming around Moreno or Medrano.

Both of them appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow, entered their plea of “not guilty,” then formally said they can’t afford to hire legal representation.

They’re getting the federal equivalent of the public defender – who likely is swamped with so many other cases involving indigent defendants  that it is questionable how high a quality of a legal defense they’ll get.

I’m sure the attorneys who get assigned to these two will do the best they possibly can. But the key to comprehending our legal system at times (as evidenced by O.J. Simpson) is that money does talk!

OF COURSE, PERHAPS it is part of a legal strategy. The two face charges that basically say they enriched themselves with bribes. Yet both are now busted! How criminal could they be if they don’t have any money to show for it?

Particularly in the case of Medrano, who already has done a prison sentence for a previous government corruption case against him. He’s already unique in being a possible repeat offender.

Now, he’s an indigent government official. Medrano has definitely earned his place in the Chicago political history books.

All in all, all of these cases are a sad (as in pathetic, not tragic) saga. Crime, if it really did happen here, truly did not pay!

  -30-

It’s business, not personal

Could actor Tom Hanks’ “Joe Fox” character in “You’ve Got Mail” have actually been on to something when he typed an Instant Message about the film, “The Godfather” that it, “is the I-Ching. The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom. The Godfather is the answer to any question.”

For it was “The Godfather” that gave us the line, “This is business, not personal.”

AND THAT SEEMS to be the philosophy at work these days at the federal courthouse where a man facing arson and civil rights violation charges and is an admitted white supremacist has a black woman representing him as his attorney.

Although when Brian Moudry made his initial court appearance last week, what caught most peoples’ attention was the fact that he has the words “Blue-eyed Devil” tattooed onto the top of his shaven head.

But the Chicago Tribune gave us a detailed story about the dynamic involved in this particular bit of legal representation. It is an interesting piece of reporting and writing that everybody should read.

And I’m not just saying that because the particular reporter who wrote the story is a former work colleague of mine whom I’ve always had the utmost professional respect for.

SO HOW DOES it work that a white supremacist gets a young black woman attorney who likely represents everything he detests about our society today, and which he probably thinks he’s fighting against?

The key to that description of the attorney is “young.” She’s a public defender. She handles the criminal cases of indigent defendants who can’t afford to get themselves an attorney of their choice.

This was purely a luck of the draw. She didn’t pick him any more than he picked her, although the Tribune reported that upon their first meeting just prior to the court appearance, Moudry said he had no objection to her.

Which could be a matter of practicality on his part. It may also turn out that he will get his own attorney at some point in the future.

BUT I’M NOT sure I consider this to be the biggest stretch I have ever seen in a courtroom.

For I have encountered cases in the past where attorneys who happen to be Jewish wind up representing white supremacists – usually justifying taking the cases on the grounds that they’re sticking up for some higher principle in life and our society.

Get them to talk privately, and the defendants will usually rationalize the pairing by making a wisecrack about “Jew snakes” working on their behalf for a change.

But it is the reality that the law applies equally to all, and that competent, qualified and skilled attorneys should be capable of handling just about any case within their specialty.

OTHERWISE, WE PROBABLY would have to have a separate legal division of counselors who happen to share the white supremacist take of their clients.

Not that I don’t doubt that some attorneys do have their hang-ups about people who happen to not be of Anglo-Saxon origins. But it would be too much.

Let’s not forget Matt Hale, the man who is now serving a nearly four-decade prison sentence for what prosecutors said were his attempts to have a federal judge killed because he didn’t like her ruling in a legal trademark case involving his self-created white supremacist religion.

Hale originally came to prominence in the mid-1990s when he was a Southern Illinois University law school student who couldn’t get licensed to practice law even though he passed the bar exam because it was felt his racist views of the world were incompatible (he lacked “moral character and fitness”) with the profession.

HALE NEVER MADE any attempt to hide his views. He used to openly say that he thought the white supremacists of the world needed to have legal counsel who would aggressively defend their views – rather than just try to rationalize their defense on the grounds of some “free speech” principle (and the legal fees being paid).

Nobody bought that argument back then, which is why we really shouldn’t be shocked to see what happened this past week. If they had, perhaps we’d be seeing Hale’s legal skills at work in this particular case.

Instead, we’re not, as Hale is languishing in prison (another 25 years to go before he could be eligible for early release) out in Colorado. Perhaps that means all is well with our society, as it now stands. 

All because somebody’s willing to follow the principle from “The Godfather” about “business” versus “personal.” Now if we could only find a practical way to use the advice about, "Leave the gun, take the canoli."

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): What makes place historic? Helps if old

It seems Chicago has a new site on the National Register of Historic Places – although my guess is that it won’t be one that comes to most peoples’ minds.

The National Park Service has created the Cermak Road Bridge Historic District fto help influence future development of the blocks around the bridge that crosses over the South branch of the Chicago River.

I DON’T KNOW of anybody who lives in that district, or of any businesses in that area that I patronize on a regular basis. In fact, when I think of the area, all I envision are some warehouses.

Yet that is what federal and state officials (the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency helps administer the historic sites program) are hoping to pay tribute to. Because it seems that all of the buildings within the district date back to the first few years of the 20^th Century, and the bridge also was constructed back in the same time period.

In short, it is a place that has changed very little despite the passage of time. It still looks much the same. So it gets the historic designation – even though any events that actually occurred in that area during the past century likely wouldn’t trigger any memories in the minds of the average person.

The desire to preserve the “feel” of Chicago from those old days is what will be behind the historic designation. I’m just wondering how long will it be before some developer tries to come up with ideas for “revitalizing” the area that he complains are being interfered with by these “history zealots” the way that some people rant and rage about environmentalists somehow interfering with business?

YES, I HAVE to admit to getting a kick out of this newest historic site designation. Because I realize that our society has to keep some sense of where we’ve been, if we’re to fully appreciate what direction we ought to be heading in.

It would be easy for one new development to crop up to something of significance and ruin the effect. To me, the best example of that is the National Park that was created out of the blocks immediately surrounding the Abraham Lincoln home in Springfield, Ill.

Federal officials try to make the neighborhood look like it did when the Lincoln family actually lived there in the 1850s. But because officials didn’t get control of all the property in the area until the 1940s, some of the neighborhood houses have advanced beyond the desired time period. It can have a jarring effect.

What else is notable these days about life along the shores of the southwestern portions of Lake Michigan?

NOW WE KNOW WHAT HE WON’T DO:  I got my chuckles from listening to soon-to-be former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who told us he won’t run for political office and won’t become a criminal defense attorney.

He claims not to know what he’s going to do with his life once his “summer break” is complete. It seems he did make a recommendation to Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., as to who he thinks should succeed him. But it seems that Durbin is honoring Fitzgerald’s desire not to publicly name that person at this point.

So we really don’t know at this point what’s going to become of the man, except for one thing.

He’s not planning to go back to his native New York City; he’s come to love living in Chicago. He says he’s staying. Which means on some level, he has some sense!

YOU CAN’T GO HOME AGAIN:  Author Thomas Wolfe could have written the headline for the reports this week about the disappointment felt by Barack Obama for the couple of days he was in town during the NATO Summit held at McCormick Place.

The president publicly said that he couldn’t be at Wrigley Field to watch his fan favorite White Sox beat up on the Cubs because he’s not allowed to have much fun built into his working schedule.

But on a more serious note, he wasn’t even allowed to stop by the family residence in the Hyde Park neighborhood for a quickie visit. Which was something he had hoped to do.

Security was so tight that the roads leading up to his home were shut down for the duration. Even the president got inconvenienced by the NATO-related security.

SOMETHING FOR SOX FANS TO LOOK FORWARD TO?:  Could the big story of Chicago baseball in 2012 turn out to be a battle for who gets to be Comeback Player of the Year?

The annual award to the player who showed the most improvement compared to the prior year is something that could wind up being won by a White Sox – although whether it would be the “Big Donkey” or the man some fans try to call “Joliet Jake” is arguable.

The “Donkey,” of course, is Adam Dunn, who has wisecracked about how he expects to win the award this year because of how awful his 2011 season was.  Going into Friday, Dunn had hit 14 home runs and had a .568 slugging percentage – although the one category he was leading the American League in was strikeouts (68 in 155 at-bats).

But then there is Jake Peavy – the one-time National League Cy Young Award winner who has been truly mediocre pitching in Chicago. Thus far this year, he has a 5-1 won/loss record with a 2.39 earned run average and has a strikeout-to-walk ratio of 5-1 – which is overpowering.

  -30-