Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Arroyo pleads “not guilty”
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - More campaign stuff
Posted in:
* Speaker Madigan talked to reporters today after the House Democrats caucused. First up, why did he decide to release the Jack Franks search warrant…
Let me speak generally to the matter of Jack Franks. My interest and the interest of my office throughout has been the welfare and the privacy of the victim. And our investigation proceeded at all times at the wishes of the victim.
Early on, we notified Mr. Franks, that he should not go into the Capitol building, that he should not contact our employees. Later, we made sure that the Capitol Police knew that he should not come into the Capitol Building without an escort.
And then I was the one that called the Sangamon County State’s Attorney, advised the Sangamon County State’s Attorney that I wanted my attorney to come over and speak to him about a potential criminal event. That all happened. So my attorney and my human resources director met with the state’s attorney, the state’s attorney advised that we should work with the state police, which we did.
In terms of the matter of turning over the documents that’s a difference of opinion among lawyers. But throughout all of this, again, my interest is the welfare and the privacy of the victim.
* Madigan was then asked if Franks was such a danger that he had to be escorted by the police, why didn’t Madigan notify Franks’ constituents and colleagues about what was happening…
We are proceeding under the usual rules of these matters, which is, number one, to to protect the welfare and the privacy of the victim. And then at the appropriate time, we notified law enforcement. Once we notified law enforcement, the matter is in the hands of law enforcement.
And as I said earlier, I was the one who placed the ball at the Sangamon County State’s Attorney.
* “Why respond to a FOIA?” Madigan was asked. “I thought the General Assembly was exempt from FOIA”…
Well, again, this is a matter of a difference of opinion among lawyers, which I’m sure the lawyers will work through. So with all of that, thank you.
The GA isn’t totally exempt from FOIA. Several news organizations, you’ll recall, FOIA’d the Sandoval Statehouse search warrant from the Senate. But, yeah, it’s unusual to see MJM’s office respond to a FOIA so quickly, if at all. (Many thanks to Hannah Meisel for the audio recording.)
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 2:12 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Arroyo pleads “not guilty”
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - More campaign stuff
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
On the FOIA, it’s pretty clear Madigan didn’t want speculation as to why his office was being raided so he erred on the side of maximal disclosure which is clearly not his normal MO in any way, shape or form.
Comment by Southern Skeptic Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 2:28 pm
File a foia asking for correspondence from his office today regarding a,b, or c, and I’m sure you’ll get what you’ve been asking for, snark.
Comment by Rutro Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 2:54 pm
Potential Contempt of Court is not a “difference among lawyers”. A court order directing confidentiality is not a suggestion.
Comment by Just Another Anon Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 3:10 pm
Subpeonas and warrants all contain the boiler plate language stating it should not be disclosed. But there is case law that states the Freedom of Information Act applies to such documents and public bodies must comply with FOIA. Take a look at BGA v. Blagojevich.
Comment by read the law Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 3:17 pm
Maybe someone should FOIA the Capitol Police for the escorts list.
Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 3:30 pm
Read the law is correct.
Are we all gonna sit here and pretend prosecutors and police never leak info to the press? Atleast Madigan was transparent about it.
BTW, did we ever find out who filed the FOiA request and when?
Comment by Ask Stu Levine Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 4:18 pm
@read the law and Ask Stu Levine: You may wish to read the Illinois Supreme Court opinion in In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor issued last September wherein they held that a lawful court order takes precedence over FOIA disclosure requirements. This ruling is in line with a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Comment by Bourbon Street Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 4:25 pm
Bourbon Street–Exactly And it would have taken one phone call to confirm a protective order. Malpractice not to make that call. And since when did the speaker’s crack sexual assault investigations team appoint itself determiner on severity of sexual assault/stalking allegations? This should have been immediately referred out to Inspector General and/or law enforcement. Protecting the victim? Victims ID doesn’t have to be disclosed until charges filed and again when did the Speaker’s staff develop its expertise in handling sexual assault victims?
Comment by 19th Ward Guy Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 5:49 pm
“This should have been immediately referred out to Inspector General and/or law enforcement.”
Uh…it was.
Comment by Boots Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:19 pm
Bourbon Street
AND: (1) BGA v. Blagojevich was decided in the face of opposition from Patrick Fitzgerald’s office - in my realm, US Attorneys directives on subpoenas best State FOIA laws; and (2) the opinion was written by a judge who had a conflict of interest, he should have recused himself, had the case involved anyone but Blagojevich the judge would have been sanctioned / removed from office by the Judicial Inquiry Board, and should not be relied upon.
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:26 pm