Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Lou Lang an adviser on the Danville casino
Next Post: Pro teams want sports betting monopolies in their zones
Posted in:
* WBEZ…
WBEZ filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Illinois Senate, alleging that details from the recent federal anti-corruption raids of a top legislator’s offices are being hidden from public view in violation of the state’s open-records law.
The suit was filed in Sangamon County Circuit Court by lawyer Matt Topic and comes a day after Democratic Senate President John Cullerton’s office gave reporters heavily blacked-out documents from the FBI investigation of powerful state Sen. Martin Sandoval, a high-ranking Cullerton ally. […]
But in this case, Cullerton’s office instead decided to delete dozens of names of individuals and companies who were mentioned in the search warrant from the copies given to WBEZ and other news organizations. […]
The newly filed lawsuit alleges that the state Senate’s deletions were made “in willful violation of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act” and seeks unredacted documents.
* This is what Cullerton’s spokesman said the other day when asked…
Decisions were guided by an Attorney General’s opinion, case law and discussions with the investigative authorities.
So, in other words, they’re blaming part of it on the feds.
The AG’s binding opinion was issued just days ago on September 24th. You can click here to read it.
An Illinois appellate court ruled in 2009 that Gov. Rod Blagojevich had to turn over federal grand jury subpoenas served on the governor. The City of Chicago turned over an unredacted list of items seized during the federal raids of Ald. Ed Burke’s offices.
The extensive redactions made by the Senate Democrats are here.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 11:34 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Lou Lang an adviser on the Danville casino
Next Post: Pro teams want sports betting monopolies in their zones
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Good for WBEZ. I thought the highly edited paperwork was ridiculous. More Sunlight please.
Comment by Al Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 11:41 am
The Capital is lit up, but only on the outside
Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 11:52 am
If the feds specifically asked for redactions, or if redactions were made to protect the privacy of a potential victim (or maybe even an IDOT bureaucrat who did nothing wrong,) then the redactions might hold up.
But, it’s pretty rare for the feds to ask for redactions. Usually they give little in the way of guidance to local governments on responding to FOIA’s on federal warrants. Their boilerplate response to government attorneys or FOIA officers who ask if they should redact information is to say something like “follow your established guidelines and state law regarding FOIA requests.”
Comment by Speaking from experience Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 12:11 pm
I agree with Al. I just wonder if the feds told certain people to keep certain things redacted because they are working on an ongoing investigation ? I don’t know what the law is here in this particular situation. But, I wonder.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 12:12 pm
I was thinking the same thing. Redactions are not okay. It is a legal document, not some internal e-mail with someone’s SSN.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 12:13 pm
Were the names redacted bc the warrant says “under seal” in the top corner? If the people named in the warrant haven’t been interviewed by the feds, then I support the Senate’s decision to redact the names. There is no need to drag someone through the “court of public opinion” and criticism IF the feds haven’t interviewed the individuals and if they are not the subject of the alleged wrongdoing. What if one of those individuals is the person that came forward with information that caused the warrant?
That warrant seems to cover a lot of possible issues.
Comment by Career Politician 2.0 Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 12:17 pm
==Decisions were guided by an Attorney General’s==
The IL AG has been a mockery of the legal system for two decades now. For 16 years the qualificaitons were–willingness to protect the speaker and his agenday.” The current AG has no real interest in corruption or protecting the people.
He is another Madigan Politial Hack. We need a prosecutor.
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 12:40 pm
The Attorney General of Illinois is not a prosecutor.
Same when it was Jim Ryan and Lisa Madigan.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 12:51 pm
@the Patriot
Please read the state constitution and applicable laws regarding the AG’s duties and get back to us. Thanks.
Comment by Roman Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 12:53 pm
In defense of the Patriot, I think he was saying we need a prosecutor to be the Attorney General. At least that is how I read it because he was complaining that past Attorney Generals have been political hacks, a statement that bears some truth.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 12:56 pm
Go on…… popcorn popping……
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 12:58 pm
The Senate will not fair well in Circuit Court.
They used basically 3 exemptions: (1)private information information (which is home address, SSN, phone, etc.); (2) personal information (stuff that may cause personal embarrassment, or stuff like DOB or race/gender information); and (3) the “d” series used for criminal/administrative investigation/enforcement matters.
Okay, maybe there is some private information in the warrant, doesn’t look like it, but maybe there is something there.
I could maybe see the personal info exemption (under FOIA corporations are people too), but Sandoval isn’t redacted and currently remains uncharged in anything, if this exemption does actually apply, it should apply to him as well at this point. They are required to weigh the privacy concerns against the public interest in the information, but here we have a high ranking Senator and presumably organizations conducting public works projects, or at least receiving state money, so my take is the public interest may outweigh the privacy concerns.
They truly messed up the “d” series of exemptions because these generally only apply when the recipient of the FOIA is the one conducting the investigation/enforcement. So if I FOIA Chicago PD about any investigations they are conducting about me, they don’t have to release those, but if CPD sent a subpoena or something to my public body employer, my public body employer would be, generally, on the hook for producing that subpoena. Since the Senate isn’t conducting this investigation, they can’t use these exemptions.
Comment by JSS Thursday, Oct 3, 19 @ 1:50 pm