No There There in McCulloch Prosecution
You remember the big news last fall that political consultant Rod McCulloch had been indicted for submitting forged signatures on petitions for former Milton Twp. Assessor Jim Gumm? At the time the impression given was that McCulloch had engaged in some variation of the infamous practice of 'round-tabling' (where workers don't really circulate petitions, but get several people with voter lists to pass petitions around and forge names to petitions from the lists). The indictment was obtained by DuPage County State's Atty. Joe Birkett, who passed it off to the appellate prosecutor after deciding to run for lieutenant governor.
But the indictment does not involve 'round-tabling' at all. In fact, it doesn't even accuse McCulloch of forging any signatures. Rather, it accuses him of knowingly turning in five forged signatures. Yes, you read that number right - five. Now the indictment gives itself an out by listing the names as "...including, but not limited to..." But typically a prosecutor throws everything he has when seeking an indictment. Unless there is a whole lot more there, the office which kept on trying to get the death penalty for Rolando Cruz long after any reasonable person knew he was innocent is at it again.
People who have passed petitions know what I'm talking about, but let me explain for those who haven't. Whenever you circulate petitions (particularly where a large number of signatures are required) it is inevitable that you are going to get a sizable chunk of bad signatures. You get spouses signing for each other (which is technically forgery), jokers signing phony celebrity names, people who have moved signing before having re-registered...there are all sorts of problems. If you are very careful, around 10% of your signatures will be bad. If you go and collect at large public places or events, such as train stations, shopping malls or sporting events, the percentage of bad signatures goes up to between 20 - 35%. There is no fraud involved. Getting signatures on petitions is just a sloppy business. This is one of the major reasons why most candidates try to get significantly more signatures than they need: they know 10 - 30 percent of their signatures will be bad.
The law recognizes that the process is inherently messy, too. That is why the recourse for interested parties who want to challenge the validity of a candidate's petition signatures is the striking of invalid signatures, rather than criminal prosecution of collectors. If sufficient signatures are stricken to get below the minimum required, the candidate is removed from ballot. The situation is resolved without speculating over whether any criminal intent might have existed.
The exception to this rule is if there is a clear effort to defraud the electoral process. Very rarely does anyone consider prosecuting anyone for flaws in the petition process for anything other than some form of "round-tabling." It is sensible law that allows for prosecution of egregious criminal intent, but gives satisfactory recourse for mere sloppiness or deficiency.
To issue an indictment based on five bad signatures is to criminalize the normal political process. Based on that standard, the staff and volunteers for just about every candidate of every party for every office in the state should be indicted. That would include Joe Birkett's team in his bid for lieutenant governor. I took a look through his petitions for lieutenant governor and stopped counting after I found 20 obvious cases of spouses signing for each other - technical forgery.
I realize there has been bad blood between Birkett and McCulloch for years. I also understand that, in those cases, a prosecutor might look hard to find some legitimate reason to strike. But when you look and there isn't a case, you need to acknowledge you don't have a case; not ramrod a Grand Jury into indicting that ham sandwich. To do otherwise is to violate your oath to serve justice and the public in a most ugly fashion.
An additional problem with this whole business is that McCulloch makes his living as a political consultant. Even a bogus indictment cripples his ability to ply his trade.
Rod McCulloch has been called the 'mad scientist' of Illinois politics, the nutty professor, and the consultant for whom the phrase, 'rough around the edges' was invented. There may be some truth to some of that, but whether you like or hate him, there is no evidence that he is a crook - least of all in these indictments. Unless there was a WHOLE lot more that the indictments didn't cover, not only should this be tossed rather quickly; an energetic attorney might find cause for filing civil suit against DuPage County. The mad scientist of Illinois politics might yet concoct an enviable payday out of this mess.
13 comments:
Rod is an example of GOP gadflys who hang around election after election looking for the next big pay off...we need some new blood in the ILGOP, not sure in those running for office, but those helping them run.
We need A ILGOP. Madigan and Emmanuel are causing havoc in this state. Why is the Republican response mum.
Maybe Cox should run for Chairman of the ILGOP.
I have not read the indictment but I saw the petitions. (They were available online at one point in time.) There were over 500 forged signatures. AND, they were obvious forgeries taken from basically the same few precincts, including Gumm's. (BTW, what are the odds that only men were home when the Gumm campaign "circulated" petitions??? A quick look at the petitions revealed that nearly all the signatures were men's names.)
AND, people verified that their signatures were forged.
A mailing was sent out with a copy of the petition containing the questionable signature(s) and a hotline number that they could call to report a forgery. There were hundreds of people who called in to verify their signature was forged. The Daily Herald ran a story and interviewed a number of these people.
You are mistaken in your assessment of this case.
The political process is NOT being criminalized in this case. People are looking for justice.
Birds of a feather flock together...that's what I read into this post.
Yes, I read the Daily Herald article, too. And I thought, oh boy, this looks bad. That is why I was so shocked when I saw there were a total of five (count 'em - five) bad names mentioned in the indictments.
People can allege whatever they want - and often do. What counts is what happens when the rubber meets the road. In this case what happened was that after jawboning about hundreds of proven forgeries, five bad names were mentioned in the indictment. In Sesame Street they used to sing that..."one of these things is not like the others..." Five is not hundreds. Even Big Bird could figure that out.
There have been several follow-up stories since, but here's the Daily Herald story referenced:
Friday February 04 2005
Township assessor defends petitions amid forgery claims
James Fuller Daily Herald Staff Writer
If you believe Jim Gumm's nominating petitions for re-election as Milton Township assessor, he has the full support of Frank Haywood.
The Wheaton resident seems to support Gumm so much he signed Gumm's nominating petitions twice: once as Frank Haywood and again, directly below that, as Frank Hayward, at the same address.
The problem is the real Frank Haywood says he didn't pen either signature.
"Whoever did this was pretty dumb," he said. "If you're trying to hide something like two fake signatures, you'd think you'd bury them someplace other than one after the other."
That example, and possibly hundreds of others, are behind claims of fraud in a pending objection to Gumm's petitions.
If it proves true, Gumm could be booted off the April 5 ballot.
An unscientific check of the signatures suggests at least some might be false. Of eight people contacted, all said they never signed a Gumm petition.
A signature allegedly belonging to Scott Kozas seems particularly questionable. He's lived in Texas for the past year and a half, said his father, Michael, whose signature appears directly above on one petition.
"Jim Gumm? I don't even know who he is," Michael Kozas said.
Fellow Wheaton resident Wayne Hill also denied signing Gumm's petition.
"I don't even know where (Milton Township) is," Hill said.
Consultant Rod McCulloch obtained most of the nearly 750 signatures in question and said no one should be surprised by a few mistakes.
"There are errors on every set of petitions ever filed," he said.
McCulloch said he and a crew worked for four days during a snowstorm to get the names. He said he either personally obtained them or was within 15 feet of the signer.
It's not uncommon for someone to sign a fake name, McCulloch said. He's even seen rival campaigns send out people to sign phony names.
Keri-Lyn Krafthefer, the attorney for the objector, Joe Nesbitt, also noted that residents from the same streets appear on several different pages of petitions. That suggests an illogical effort of jumping block-to-block rather than door-to-door, she said.
McCulloch said those are the words of someone ignorant to the process.
"That's just stupid and a stupid complaint," he said. The multiple addresses are the result of workers taking breaks to get warm, he said.
"For (them) to think that someone's going to walk for five hours on a street during a blizzard just shows the amateurishness of the complaint," he said. "It's just unfortunate that I've gotten caught up in this web of hatred they have for (Gumm)."
For his part, Gumm said he's certain the petitions circulated by 14 other volunteers are genuine.
What's really behind the objection, Gumm said, is politics. He said witnesses told him Milton Township Trustee Jim Flickinger submitted the objection with Nesbitt, though Flickinger's name does not appear on it.
Gumm said Flickinger wants to see him off the ballot so Flickinger can take credit for getting Gumm booted.
That effort began back when Gumm says Flickinger helped manufacture a sexual harassment claim against Gumm back in 2001. Flickinger is one of several defendants in a federal lawsuit Gumm filed, claiming a clandestine effort to smear his name to get him removed from office. All the defendants deny the allegations.
"This isn't going to stop until I walk away, and I'm not going to walk away," he said. "All I'm looking for is the opportunity to get on the ballot. Why not let the people make the choice?"
Flickinger declined to comment.
Gumm's ballot fate could be decided at a hearing, which will likely occur next week.
The hearing panel would consist of township Supervisor Chris Heidorn, Clerk Arlene DeMotte and Trustee Barbara Murphy. But Murphy and Heidorn are also defendants in Gumm's suit.
If they are dismissed or recuse themselves, the next most senior trustee, Ken McNatt, would replace one of them. But all trustees are potential witnesses in Gumm's federal suit.
If the township can't form its own hearing body, DuPage County Chief Judge Robert Kilander must appoint a hearing panel, said Doreen Nelson, assistant director of the DuPage election commission.
Nelson said the judge would possibly draw from members of the election commission's electoral board.
...we need some new blood in the ILGOP, not sure in those running for office, but those helping them run.
New blood is available......
triple m strategies
www.triplem.us
I have seen the petitions as well. It's pretty obvious that these petitons were forged. As Anonymous 8:45 points out--it's 500 signatures, pretty hard to miss that.
I'm pretty shocked that Charlie Johnston would defend Rod McCullochn a person with a reputation this side of Dick Morris, save the intelligence and success.
You would think that Charlie's clients would question the effect of this position on their respective campaigns. There are a lot of Birkett voters out there...
We won't know which side is right until the trial is over. Would both sides stipulate upfront that the verdict either way will end the debate about Rod's culpability or lack thereof?
Well, anon 6:57, this column has nothing to do with whether or not a candidate should contract with McCulloch. That issue is irrelevant. And if you had lived in Lake County during the seven years I did radio there, you would not be shocked at all about my comments here today. I believe in fair play...I frequently vigorously defended people I did not vote for and had, in fact, heartily criticized IF I thought they were the victims of an unfair attack. Did it every time.
Many of you keep saying there were over 500 obvious forgeries on those petitions. When the charges first surfaced I had nothing to say, because I had no reason to doubt it. But then I saw the indictment which, contrary to all the jawboning on this, only raises five names. If this is such an obvious, slam-dunk case then why doesn't the indictment reflect that? That is all I'm asking.
Rest assured that if Hillary Clinton were being pilloried in this fashion I would rise to her defense as well. And I can't stand her. But just is just and fair is fair...and that is what I try to speak for.
Now if you can explain why only five names showed up in the indictment after all the jawboning, I will be glad to hear. But I will not participate in a railroad job against my worst enemy - never have, never will. And yes, I'll holler about it every time - including if it is against my worst enemy.
mccullough also forged the signatures for a candidate who ran for mayor of aurora - jack cunningham. the chicago tribune reporter who covers aurora and lives in aurora saw her neighbors on the petitions and she called these people up and none of them signed the petition. the story ran in chicago tribune - its in their archives. it is by amy roth.
rod was the "circulator" of these forged petitions.
The aurora paper says it found a bunch of forged signatures in mayor race. State's Attorney there is still investigating.
Doesn't matter how many counts are listed in indictment. Birkett could have charged more. It was obvious he was giving Rod every opportunity to clear this up and he lied, thus the perjury charges.
The bottom line is that Gumm had to resign because of all the forgeries. It's a serious matter, Charlie. I think any Republican worth his name would be in favor of clean elections. I can't understand why you'd buy Rod's BS spin.
McCullough has been doing this for years.
While you are musing about investigations, why don't you explore how Rod is paying for one of the most expensive attorneys in Chicago. Could another campaign be helping?
McCulloch isn't charged with forging any signatures anywhere. So if there are forged signatures, who did it? Isn't curious Birkett has made no attempt to bring the real forgers to justice? Maybe they didn't work against Birkett.
Also, someone should tell Joe Birkett or his stooges to stop asking how McCulloch is paying for his attorney. It's none of his business.
Post a Comment