Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Protecting his people
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
Posted in:
* The Sun-Times writes about the guilty plea by Curtis Thompson, former chief of staff to Ald. Howard Brookins…
However, according to Thompson’s plea deal, Thompson met with the informant and another unnamed individual Oct. 7, 2013, at Brookins’ ward office. That’s when the informant showed Thompson a note that read, “$7,500 to Ald for L.O.S.” Thompson took it to mean the informant was offering to pay $7,500 for a letter support from the alderman, according to the plea. Thompson said he understood and said he’d bring the proposal to his boss.
The document then describes an Oct. 29, 2013 meeting between Thompson, Brookins, the informant and another unnamed individual in Brookins’ ward office. There, the informant handed the alderman a sheet of paper that read “$12K to you for letter of support,” according to the plea deal. The piece of paper was then passed to Thompson.
At a Nov. 19, 2013 meeting attended by Thompson, Brookins and two others, the informant said he was trying to become a 7-Eleven franchisee, and Brookins expressed his support, according to the document.
When the informant asked Brookins who he should go to “to hold up my end” — and if the alderman was “good with the same arrangement” they’d spoken about before — Thompson understood the informant was making reference to the bribe, according to the plea deal.
Over the next few weeks, Thompson prepared two letters of support for the informant on Brookins’ letterhead, signing Brookins’ name. Before doing so, he sought Brookins’ approval, the plea deal said. Thompson knew the informant later picked them up and planned to use them to obtain a liquor license for his proposed store.
Finally, on Dec. 19, 2013, prosecutors said the informant handed Thompson a Christmas card in a red envelope at Brookins’ holiday party. It was filled with 75 $100 bills.
Yikes.
* In other guilty news….
A former Illinois state representative is expected change his plea to guilty in a child pornography case.
A defense filing this week said Elgin Democrat Keith Farnham intends to plead guilty in federal court in Chicago on Friday as part of a plea deal.
The 66-year-old pleaded not guilty earlier this year to possessing, receiving and transporting child pornography.
Prosecutors say Farnham possessed videos depicting child pornography on a computer. A complaint provided graphic details about images allegedly sought and traded by Farnham online. Some children were allegedly under 10.
Good riddance.
…Adding… From the US Attorney’s office…
In pleading guilty, Farnham admitted that on Nov. 25, 2013, he sent an email from a computer in his Elgin office with the following message: “do you trade. This is what I lik.” Farnham attached two files to the email that he knew contained child pornography. In addition, he possessed images and videos depicting child pornography on computers and electronic storage devices in his residence, car and offices.
On March 13 of this year, agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) executed federal search warrants at Farnham’s state office and residence in Elgin and seized computers and electronic storage devices. On that day, Farnham possessed no fewer than 2,765 images of real minors engaged in sexually explicit acts, including sexual intercourse, with prepubescent children. Some of the images involved sadistic or masochistic conduct and depictions of violence, according to Farnham’s guilty plea.
According to the court documents, HSI agents were investigating information received from the HSI Cyber Crimes Center that an email address, later linked to Farnham, was being used to trade child pornography on the Internet.
A sick monster.
* Meanwhile…
Federal prosecutors plan to summon Dr. Eric E. Whitaker, one of President Barack Obama’s closest friends, into U.S. District Court in Springfield next week to question him outside the presence of jurors before a judge decides whether Whitaker can be called as a hostile witness in the fraud trial of a Chicago businessman.
The 49-year-old Chicago physician is set to be questioned by prosecutors at 2 p.m. Monday before U.S. District Judge Richard Mills. The judge ruled this week that prosecutors made a good case to treat Whitaker as a hostile prosecution witness but said he would hold off ruling on their request until first hearing how Whitaker answers questions outside the presence of the jury.
After questioning Whitaker and getting Mills’ ruling, prosecutors will decide whether to call him to testify in the trial of Leon Dingle Jr. and his wife, Karin Dingle, who are accused of stealing more than $3 million in state grants obtained from the Illinois Department of Public Health, which Whitaker headed from 2003 to 2007.
“The final determination as to whether [Whitaker] would be called as a witness in the case has not been determined,” Sharon Paul, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Springfield, said Thursday.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 10:39 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Protecting his people
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Whitaker was a disaster for IDPH. In so many ways.
Comment by Judgment Day Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 10:54 am
is that like the new game of duck, duck, lose?
Comment by Amalia Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 10:54 am
Thompson took cash in an envelope in a public setting. Unbelievable. The U.S attorney had been making stings all over the South and West sides for years by then.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 11:00 am
Not to threadjack too much but as the Whitaker story deals with state grants… can we have a blog post sometime on the bizarre feud between Sen Bill Brady and the City of Bloomington over the city rejecting his efforts to use state grant money for Bloomingtons parks to help his private Catholic high school football team acquire land for a practice field.
The Pantagraph reported today that the Senate GOP caucus is putting a hold on the grant completely so Bill Brady is dragging the state party into his local feud.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 11:06 am
Apparently good jobs by prosecutors in both Brookins and Farmham cases.
The Whitaker case might have a hint of prosecutorial overreach, which is why the judge himself will interact with Whitaker before deciding whether or not he should be treated as “hostile witness.” He was previously dealt with as a cooperating witness one by the state. They seemingly tried to take him into areas not germaine (in his mind)to the case at hand, and he refused to go down that road. We shall see. The judge will sort it out.
Comment by walker Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 11:12 am
I believe Whitaker’s Chief of Staff has already been convicted. During his tenure there were several characters within the Department that had people scratching their heads.
Comment by BMAN Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 11:18 am
Just wondering when we will see the US Attorney prosecute the finance wizards that tanked our economy, oh wait, need to get those alderman for writing letters first.
Comment by IllinoisO'Malley Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 11:35 am
Goodbye, Brookins.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 11:52 am
I saw Brookins present when he was running for Cook County States Attorney.
He’s an entitled twit. And he did hire a chief of staff who turned-out to be impressively easy for the feds to catch taking a bribe.
But I remain concerned about a couple points.
1. Some columnist in the Trib made the point that aldermen who are lawyers can augment their incomes by doing legal consulting, an option not available to aldermen without law degrees.
Of course, Brookins is a lawyer (pre-disbarred). So, he’s being brought down for money he could have made doing dishonest (but legal!) work.
Howard Brookins is too stupid to either be effective as a non-corrupt or as a corrupt alderman.
2. Dangling $5-10,000 in front of an alderman… I remain concerned that that these kind of stings allow prosecutors to pick and choose who gets to serve as an elected official and who doesn’t. During ABSCAM DOJ found that most Members of Congress would take the bribe, so DOJ was effectively picking who would be in Congress by which MoCs they offered the bribes to.
And maybe the USANID & FBI have info about who is stupid and dishonest, so they are picking targets based on being stupid & dishonest.
And if they were looking for stupid & dishonest… Brookins fit the description.
I do share IllinoisO’Malley’s general sentiment. DOJ avoids taking important cases by taking down dimwits like Brookins and his chief of staff.
If these are the biggest cases DOJ is taking, they are overpaid.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 12:17 pm
O’Malley you hit the nail on the head. These prosecutions are all corruption charges of government officials and grant recipients. I thought the new plan by the US Attorney was to go after bigger fish.
Comment by John Parnell Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 12:25 pm
Good riddance to Thompson and Farnham.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 12:51 pm
These are essentially small potatoes, sure. But they are just horrible. Every one of them. These prosecutions of corruption and scandals involving local figures in politics (or on the periphery of politics) affect public perception much more in terms of fomenting mistrust in government than the big national scandals, I think. People may actually know or may have voted for these losers. That makes it personal.
Comment by Responsa Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 12:56 pm
“Not to threadjack too much but as the Whitaker story deals with state grants… can we have a blog post sometime on the bizarre feud between Sen Bill Brady and the City of Bloomington over the city rejecting his efforts to use state grant money for Bloomingtons parks to help his private Catholic high school football team acquire land for a practice field.
The Pantagraph reported today that the Senate GOP caucus is putting a hold on the grant completely so Bill Brady is dragging the state party into his local feud.”
————————–
That’s Terry Renner and his crew running the City that got a case of the ’stupids’. The deal was for land on the East side (very expensive) that could be used for a practice field and City use (dual use, not a bad concept, actually) with state funding that Bill Brady carried the water for.
Renner than stomps all over the deal by trashing an Alderman who also sat on the catholic high school board (powerless position, but didn’t disclose it) to basically kill the deal. So there’s more than a few hard feelings there (I mean a lot….)
Then the mayoral genius decides he wants to ‘re-purpose’ the funding to his own pet project(s) w/o talking to the political sponsor(s) who did all the heavy lifting, but instead goes right to the state bureaucracy to try and get around the local reps and senator who had done all the heavy lifting. Very very not smart.
It’s not a bizarre feud. It’s a dimwitted mayor who doesn’t know how to play the game. Or even talk to people.
Renner seems to think he can win by trashing other people’s reputation to get his way. All that gets you is a lot of people who will be unwilling to work with you.
That’s the insides…..
Comment by Judgment Day Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 1:14 pm
Shame on Curtis Thompson. Former State Rep. Keith Farnham hurt children and this is unforgiveable. Please seek help! Dr. Eric Whitaker is certainly in a bind.
Comment by Black Ivy Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 2:54 pm
Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez formerly headed up the Public Integrity unit of the office while she was an assistant prosecutor. How is it that the Feds are the only ones who manage to indict and prosecute corrupt politicians in Chicago? Just wondering…
Comment by Under Further Review Friday, Dec 5, 14 @ 4:40 pm