EXTRA: Well, that didn't take long

A U.S. Court of Appeals panel based in Chicago officially upheld the 14-year prison sentence that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich is serving. This ruling comes merely three days after attorneys for Blagojevich argued that the trial judge didn't take into account all the letters written by prison inmates who have encountered the former governor and say he has been a model inmate.

ZAGEL: His Blagojevich ruling upheld (again)

It's not the least bit surprising the appeals court would take such an attitude -- not wanting to overturn U.S. District Judge James Zagel unless he did something that was a blatant legal screw-up.

BUT THIS WAS a quick ruling. The argument was made Tuesday, and the written legal brief rejecting Milorod came out Friday morning. Not even the appearance of any real deliberation. It reminds me of when the Illinois Supreme Court considered the case of "Baby Richard," a child whose adoption was challenged by his father even though the mother willingly gave the boy up. It took that court four hours to come back with a ruling in the father's favor.

Blagojevich's attorneys can now take their case to the Supreme Court of the United States, although I can't envision that in this Age of Trump they'd be terribly sympathetic. The only real question is, 'How quickly will they refuse to even hear arguments?'

  -30-

EXTRA: Blagojevich off to SCOTUS, will they care to hear his appeal?

BLAGOJEVICH: Appeal, not he, off to D.C.

“Petition for rehearing is therefore DENIED!”

That was the bottom line for the docket entry Wednesday connected to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s ongoing attempts to get out of prison without having to serve that 14-year sentence he received back in 2012.

EARLIER THIS MONTH, Blagojevich asked the full Court of Appeals in Chicago to reconsider his case – even though a three-judge panel had already struck down a few charges, but left enough intact that he’s still going to have to do more prison time.

It was considered by legal experts to be a long-shot, and it really was. All three judges on the panel voted “no” to the idea of further reconsideration, and none of the other justices based in Chicago felt the need to overrule them.

It’s good to be the king, or an appeals court judge, it seems. It would have taken an egregious error to get something overturned. And it’s not like anyone had to give a reason for being opposed to rehearing Blagojevich’s case. There are no tea leaves to be read in this case as to why it didn't happen.

So Blagojevich remains incarcerated in Colorado, with plans to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States. He will be one of thousands of cases that get filed to the nation’s high court each year on a myriad of issues -- or from people who can't accept the verdict they received from a trial judge who try to claim some high-minded legal concept is at stake.

SCALIA: Will former U.Chicago Law prof care?

BUT WILL HE be amongst the few dozen that the court even bothers to accept? Let alone hear oral arguments on and ultimately rule in their favor?

Somehow, I suspect we have a better chance of hearing Antonin Scalia confess how wrong he was in his opposition to gay marriage before any of the justices feels compelled to give Blagojevich a second thought!

  -30-

Will gun control be the new “gay marriage” issue that divides us?

To watch the superficial evidence around us, along with assorted polls, the public is more accepting of the concept of gay couples being able to marry. Even those people who are appalled at the concept seem to be conceding – on some level – that the battle is lost and it eventually will become legally acceptable everywhere.

EMANUEL: The 'face' of gun control?

Which means we now need a new “issue” that divides us as a society and gets everybody all ticked off into a frenzy. A new dividing line that cannot be crossed!

AND I’M SUSPECTING that it’s going to be firearms and gun control.

I look at the situation in my home state of Illinois, which is the only state that tries to completely restrict the ability of people to carry firearms in public. Some other states have such harsh restrictions on who can get the permits letting themselves carry a firearm that they might as well just ban them like we do.

But the ideologues always like to claim Illinois is the exception. And now, they have a federal Appeals Court panel saying that Illinois’ restrictions are too harsh.

They have to go!

THE ILLINOIS GENERAL Assembly has six months to figure out a new law that will let people have permits allowing people to pack a pistol in a shoulder holster, or a purse, for their personal protection.

The firearms proponents are taking this as justification that they were right all along, and that Illinois is going to have to start doing away with its restrictive attitude – brought on largely by city officials in Chicago.

These NRA-types were the ones who were constantly demonizing former Mayor Richard M. Daley and weren’t the least bit sorry to see him go.

And I’m sure they’re equally appalled by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Who is turning out to be equally hard-headed with regards to the issue.

HE’S MADE IT clear the city will cooperate with any effort by the state Attorney General’s office to appeal the Appeals Court ruling – even though Attorney General Lisa Madigan herself has been reluctant to say she would take such action.

And on Monday, Emanuel took aim (yes, it’s a tacky use of  cliché) at the NRA types. Speaking to the new graduating class of the Police Academy, Emanuel said he wants both state and federal laws banning assault weapons.

He also said he wants a “vote of conscience” by the Congress on some sort of action in response to the shooting of schoolchildren in Connecticut.

He’s out for the kill against the weapons with their large magazines that are capable of taking out dozens of people in a matter of seconds! He’s looking to assess blame against people for the rising level of violence in our society.

AND HE’S POINTING the finger at the very people who last week probably thought they were getting a legal victory that would let them start chipping away at gun control measures in general!

It isn’t going to be that simple.

The firearms proponents (who like to think they’re portraying the views of hunters and ‘sportsmen’ who enjoy the technical abilities of certain firearms) are going to find a stone wall more impenetrable than the one many of them probably fantasize about building along the U.S./Mexico border when it comes to this issue.

Much of the opposition isn’t going to die down.

I’M ALSO NOT convinced that in six months, Illinois will be in contempt of a federal appeals court for not being able to come to some conclusion on what should be done with the “concealed carry” aspect of the whole firearms debate.

A part of me wonders if the tactic by which the entire 7^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (based in Chicago) could be asked to review the opinion reached by a three-member panel – of whom two agreed and one dissented – could wind up turning back this fight.

Or are we destined to have a new issue that will arouse the anger of just about everybody – albeit in differing fashions – whenever it is brought up for discussion?

And if the ideologues can come up with a catch phrase anything along the lines of "Adam and Steve" in terms of complete vapidity when they talk about firearms?

  -30-

EXTRA: It’s going to be u-g-l-y before Illinois Legislature this spring

Here’s hoping that issues such as gambling expansion and pension reform really do manage (somehow) to get resolved in the final days of the current Illinois legislative session come January.

The black skies of this century-old postcard will match the Statehouse mood of those legislators next spring who will have to negotiate a "concealed carry" deal against their better judgment.

Because once the newly-elected General Assembly takes over, there’s the likelihood that firearms are going to be an ever-so-dominant issue.

A FEDERAL APPELLATE court on Tuesday issued an order interpreted as striking down this state’s attempts to have sense toward public safety with regards to restricting a person’s ability to pack a pistol in a shoulder holster, or a purse.

Concealed carry. It’s back.

The appeals court for northern Illinois said that it felt compelled to go along with the Supreme Court of the United States, which in cases involving other parts of the country has decided that an expansive right to bear arms (which really doesn’t exist in the letter of the law written into the Bill of Rights) is important to maintaining personal self-defense.

But before any of those insecure types whose manhood feels threatened if they can’t carry a pistol start carrying on, the appeals court stayed its own order for 180 days.

THAT IS SO the General Assembly can come up with a state law regulating the carrying of firearms in public.

The Bill of Rights may say the federal government will not impose such laws. But the state can.

Of course, the premise of these legislative negotiations is going to have to be that people do have some right to have their pistols in public under most conditions – rather than the premise of restricting such firearms use.

One of the National Rifle Association’s lobbyists told the Chicago Tribune that many of the “compromises” that his group was willing to make in the past are no more. They’re feeling the moral high-ground!

A PART OF me wonders if this is the real “damage” caused by the recent arrest of state Sen. Donne Trotter, D-Chicago, in getting caught with a pistol and ammunition at O’Hare International Airport.

Trotter, who has been among those who tried to restrict firearms because of their potential for getting into the wrong hands, is going to get all the cheap-shot rhetoric of being some sort of “hypocrite.”

Although I’m more curious to see the outcome of the Legislature’s efforts. There may well now be veto-proof majorities in the Democratic Party caucuses of both the Illinois House and state Senate. But this has always been an issue that turned more into Chicago, the city, versus the rest of the state.

Will this get further tangled up in legal appeals (no word as of when I’m writing this commentary from the Illinois attorney general)? Is this going to get tangled up into some sort of “minority rules” attempt at passing legislation?

OR WHAT HAPPENS if the 180 days passes and our Legislature finds itself incapable of coming up with anything? Which when you consider their track record on so many other issues is a very real possibility.

Illinois in contempt of court on concealed carry? Somehow, I think there will be millions of state residents who wouldn’t mind seeing that outcome fall into play.

  -30-

EXTRA: An off-the-wall question, but a predictable outcome, for Peterson case

PETERSON: Verdict pleased, but was it proper?

We should have known something was up when, in mid-day Wednesday, jurors in a Will County courtroom asked Judge Edward Burmila to clarify exactly what “unanimous” means.

As in all 12 jurors have to agree on the same verdict in order for it to mean anything.

WAS THERE SOME sort of hard-headed juror who was being stubborn, and his colleagues wanted to know what they could do to overcome him (or her)? Was there really some confusion about whether majority was enough to reach a verdict?

Or was this truly a vacuous jury?

All I know is that when I learned of the question, it seemed that Barack Obama’s worst nightmare was about to come true. The big story today and into the Friday ayem newspaper cycle would be that of the verdict against one-time Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson.

Who was going to give a squat what Obama would say on Thursday night in accepting the nomination of his political party to run for a second term as president?

AN ATTITUDE I find despicable and irritating. But one that I realistically have to acknowledge is felt by many. Cheap thrills and petty crime does have a knack of snatching attention away from serious matters.

And if it means an arrogant buffoon such as Drew Peterson officially crossed the line into becoming a corrupt cop (one who would kill his wife in order to allow himself to marry another, much younger, woman), I’m sure many people will rejoice in the “Guilty” verdict that was handed down Thursday afternoon.

Even though a part of me can’t help but think of that old Doonesbury strip from nearly four decades ago where the Mark Slackmeyer character used his radio show to do a Watergate-era program on then-Attorney General John Mitchell, whom he pronounced with a wild-eyed look to be, “Guilty! Guilty, guilty, guilty!”

Somehow, I sense the mood in Joliet on Thursday was just as crazed.

THE  REPORTS COMING from that city tell of the honking of horns and sirens, the singing of songs parodying Peterson’s plight, and even a mob that persisted in taunting defense attorneys while trying to leave the downtown Joliet courthouse – located within walking distance of the casinos.

It’s a wonder somebody didn’t get hurt.

It also doesn’t surprise me to learn that the jurors themselves sought to sneak out of the building as undetected as possible.

They would have been subjected to questioning about whether they found any substance to the hearsay testimony and lack of physical evidence that would have shown Peterson was present when Wife Number Three died.

IT IS THAT very weak evidence that had some people believing Peterson could actually be acquitted of the criminal charges – no matter how much the public mood against him is hostile.

It’s also not like the jury gave any evidence of what it thought. Usually, a juror or two is willing to discuss how a verdict was reached.

But in this case, the jury prepared a written statement that is a masterpiece of saying absolutely nothing. Unless you can interpret some significance to the one-liner of, “After much deliberation, we have reached a decision we believe is just.”

If it reads like I’m skeptical of the legitimacy of this verdict, I sort of am. But I can’t say it surprises me. I always expected the mood against Peterson to be so intense that it would sway the jury into a “guilty” verdict.

I FULLY SUSPECT that the same people who got all worked up on Thursday would have been outraged if a mistrial had been granted on any of the multiple instances during testimony that prosecutors overstepped their bounds.

But I also believe that this is a case where the appellate court decision is going to turn out to be more significant than the court verdict.

Which means the Peterson circus now gets to pack up its tent and leave Joliet for a 37-mile trip west on Interstate 80 to Ottawa – the location of the appellate court, which hasn’t seen such nonsense since the day more than a century-and-a-half ago when it hosted one of the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

  -30-

EXTRA: “Independence” Day for George Ryan remains July 4, 2013

It seems the dreams of former Gov. George Ryan to get released from prison some time in coming weeks isn’t going to happen.

RYAN: Still waiting for freedom



For a judicial panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday issued a ruling rejecting the claims of Ryan’s attorneys that some of his criminal convictions should be thrown out – reducing the length of his prison term to time served.

INSTEAD, HIS FULL 6 1/2- year prison term remains in place – the one that has him scheduled for release on Independence Day next year. Although come January, he could petition for release from the work camp near the maximum-security prison at Terre Haute, Ind., to a half-way house somewhere closer to home.

It may sound like Ryan has already done the bulk of his prison time, and should be mentally strong enough to get through the just over 10 months of incarceration he still “owes” to the Bureau of Prisons.

This probably was the last-ditch effort for Ryan to get some time knocked off his prison term. While he can (and probably will) appeal Monday’s ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States, that court is not obligated to hear the case.

Even if they do, who’s to say how quickly they’d be able to get around to acting upon it.

SO MUCH FOR the theory that Ryan could get some time knocked off his prison term on the grounds that that he did provide “honest services” during his time as governor – meaning he didn’t deliberately try to rip off the people of Illinois with the actions that ultimately were determined to be criminal by a federal court jury.

Although I stand by my gut feeling when it comes to the whole Ryan affair.

Then-President George W. Bush had a chance to issue him a pardon, and current office-holder Barack Obama has heard similar pleas to show some sympathy for Ryan, including one from now-former Illinois first lady Lura Lynn.

Which it won’t shock me to learn that he will someday grant – after Ryan serves the full prison term. Perhaps a clemency plea will be approved around the year 2014! I really expect he’ll become the Republican equivalent of Dan Rostenkowski.

AND AS FOR the thought that some people might vote against Obama just to prevent him the ability to grant such a request, it’s possible.

Then again, I suspect those people weren’t going to vote for Obama to begin with, and likely are still miffed at Ryan because of his actions that began the process that ultimately did away with the death penalty in Illinois.

Because I will always be convinced THAT is the real reason some people are so ticked off at the Ryan memory that they will never consider forgiveness.

  -30-

One comes. One goes. (Or maybe not)

Attorneys for George Ryan tried Friday to bring the former Illinois governor back from oblivion, the same day that attorneys for Michael Madigan are trying to send a West Side state legislator off to oblivion.

SMITH: On his way out (for now)?



Perhaps it is some unique balance that must be maintained. Ryan can only consider coming back to society if someone else takes his place in political purgatory!

BUT ONE HAS to admit that the timing of Ryan and Derrick Smith was a bit coincidental – as both managed to pop their way into the news cycle on Friday. And it will be a few weeks before we find out what happens with either one of them.

In the case of Smith, he’s the state legislator currently facing criminal charges in U.S. District Court that claim he was soliciting bribes while serving in the Illinois House of Representatives. He’s the guy who has been the focus of a legislative committee that has been reviewing his circumstances.

And on Thursday, that committee recommended that Smith should be kicked out of the Illinois House because of his behavior – even though he has yet to be convicted of a single offense. Only state Rep. Al Riley, D-Olympia Fields, voted against his removal.

Now, the matter goes to the full Illinois House, where on Friday House Speaker Madigan, D-Chicago, scheduled a session day for Aug. 17.

THE FULL ILLINOIS House will convene that day for just one purpose – the possible expulsion of Derrick Smith, as recommended by a committee. Under legislative rules, at least 79 of the 118 members must vote “yes” for Smith’s removal for it to happen.

Who’s to say whether that many legislators can agree on anything?

Although it always is possible that the Illinois House members will be disgusted enough that they had to return to Springfield for a day (they’re not really supposed to be back at the Capitol building until November) that they may just take it out on Smith and dump him.

Which would be a shame, because I think this whole Smith affair has the potential to make everybody look ridiculous – not just Derrick, who is stubbornly refusing to give up his post even though the fact that he faces criminal charges makes him as weak and ineffectual as any legislator can be.

SERIOUSLY, WHAT HAPPENS if he manages to get himself re-elected come the Nov. 6 general elections? That is always a real possibility. He has the benefits of incumbency.

And even though local Democrats are organizing an independent candidacy to challenge him, Smith’s chances received a boost recently when the Republican woman who also had hopes of running got kicked off the ballot for having insufficient signatures of support.

This is going to be one case that will manage to taint so many people, in large part because of the insistence that Smith be removed immediately – even though the reality of our political system is that many other officials were allowed to remain in office literally up to the point of being sent off to prison.

What makes Smith (truly a no-name, non-descript legislator if ever there was one) so special? Nothing, really!

IN FACT, THIS one day of being paired up by timing with George Ryan may be the most significant moment of the Smith political career.

Although while officials are trying to get rid of Smith, we’ll have to see if they manage to bring back Ryan from the political “dead.”

For Ryan’s attorneys argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago on Friday about why they think some of the charges for which he was convicted should be overturned and thrown out.

With the prison term that Ryan now has, he will be eligible for work-release programs early in 2013, and is supposed to be released on Independence Day. He has nearly a full year with which he must respond to the Bureau of Prisons.

BUT IF THOSE charges can be dumped, then it would reduce the length of the overall prison term. Which means theoretically that Ryan may have already served more than the amount of time in prison for what convictions remain.

RYAN: On the rebound?

A favorable court ruling sometime later this summer could result in Ryan’s immediate release from prison – which at his current age of 78 is a plus. Any amount of freedom is something he’d appreciate.

Even though I’m sure the ideologues will want to claim that it is an injustice he can’t be held for a time period longer than his current 6 ½-year prison term. Some people are going to find reason to grouse no matter what the circumstances.

And as far as the bottom-line is concerned, I remain convinced that Ryan will someday get something resembling a pardon, even if it comes after his time served is complete – making him the GOP equivalent of Dan Rostenkowski.

AS FOR SMITH?

He was, is, and always will be “Derrick Who?”

  -30-

Illinois’ take on ‘The Thing That Wouldn’t Leave’ Do we need sequel?

There’s the old Saturday Night Live sketch in which John Belushi played a houseguest who couldn’t take a hint that the evening was over and he should go home.

“The Thing That Wouldn’t Leave!” A parody of old, cheesy horror films. In my mind, I can still hear Jane Curtin’s blood-curdling scream.

AND IN MY mind, I heard it again on Monday when I stumbled across the news report about how former Gov. George Ryan’s criminal appeal has been resurrected.

Ryan, of course, was found guilty by a judge in the U.S. District Court for Chicago and northern Illinois, and a Chicago-based appeals court panel has upheld that verdict – which is why he is serving time in prison through July 4 of next year.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that there is nothing about the reasons given by the Appellate Court for upholding the conviction in Ryan’s specific case that is questionable enough that they need to get involved.

Except, …

THAT SAME COURT on Monday made a statement telling them they need to review the Ryan case again. Not because the high court is saying they did anything wrong.

It’s just that during the time that Ryan has been in prison, the Supreme Court has ruled in a case on the issue of “honest services” fraud. The appeals judges based in Chicago will have to decide if Ryan’s case falls into this category.

His attorneys, of course, will argue that it does. They have always argued that. But it wasn’t until that Supreme Court ruling in 2010 that anyone was willing to acknowledge the issue.

From Belushi to Ryan?



In theory, if the “honest services” concept is found to be relevant to Ryan, it could result in at least some of the “guilty” verdicts being overturned.

IN THEORY, IT could mean that Ryan has already served his sentence, or may have even served too much time.

It wouldn’t be in time for Ryan to return home to wife Lura Lynn (she died last year, remember?). But I’m sure he’d prefer to be free sooner, rather than later. And at Ryan’s age (he's 78, now), there’s no guarantee he’ll make it to Independence Day of 2013 – which would make his term literally a life-sentence.

As to whether or not the appeals court will take this seriously, I don’t know. The appeals court will get the legal briefs related to the case in June, but there's no hard-and-fast deadline by which the court must complete its review. I suppose they could do their review and come back, saying that they decided it doesn’t apply to Ryan.

My own gut reaction says it might. But then again, I’m not a law school student. I’m a reporter-type who has hung around enough courtrooms to get a crude knowledge of the law.

WHICH MIGHT BE more than the cashier who works at the Popeye’s chicken across the street from the Criminal Courts building at 2650 S. California Ave., but would be less than many of the defendants who wind up stopping in there for a bite to eat after making an appearance in their own court cases.

“Honest services” comes down to how much should we really expect from our government officials, and to what degree is their incompetence and foolishness something that should be punished by criminal proceedings.

There are some cases that have worked their way through the federal court system where people have argued that public officials got sent to prison for being stupid, rather than criminal.

Is that what Ryan is going to have to argue – “I was too dumb to know that my employees in the Secretary of State’s office were shaking down unqualified drivers in order to justify giving them the commercial driver’s licenses?”

IN MY MIND, that doesn’t make Ryan look good. But then again, he’d probably be willing to say it if it meant erasing a part of the prison time that he will have to do otherwise.

All of which means that those people who are desperate to believe that Ryan is venal and warrants much more punishment than he received are going to be disgusted that this case has cropped up yet again.

It truly won’t go away.

Although if I had to predict now what will happen in this case, I will say that Ryan will wind up having to do all the time he is now sentenced to.

FOR WHILE I honestly believe much of the intensity of animosity toward Ryan is motivated by his actions as governor against the death penalty (Pat Quinn would never have been in a position to abolish it in Illinois last year if Ryan hadn’t implemented the moratorium against it nine years earlier), my gut reaction is that the legal step that ultimately winds up clearing Ryan’s reputation likely won’t come until after he serves the full sentence.

A presidential pardon as Barack Obama’s last action before leaving office in early 2017? There are a lot of things that have to happen between now and then for such a moment to be possible

Then again, anything’s possible.

  -30-

Peterson and Black want to get sprung from jail – in their wildest of dreams

Conrad Black is the newspaper publisher who used to control the Chicago Sun-Times who never would have wanted to be perceived as a little guy – not many Canadians-turned Brits who become a Lord would identify with everyday people.

Drew Peterson is the former suburban Chicago cop who probably thinks he’s the ultimate common guy – one who can’t help it that young women find him appealing.

BUT BLACK AND Peterson have one thing in common these days. The two of them seem to think they’re about to get out of jail while they go about proving that they are the true victims when it comes to the criminal cases pending against them.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled recently in ways that make it more difficult for corruption cases to proceed. Actual bribery has to be proved – not just the fact that something stupid happened.

Black seems to think that will reduce the amount of time he should have to serve in prison, possibly taking his sentence from its current six-plus years to just over two years (which just happens to be the amount of time he has been locked away in federal correctional centers).

Peterson learned this week that his trial will have to be postponed. It was supposed to begin this month, but the prosecutors in Will County are appealing a court ruling related to the use of hearsay as testimony in criminal cases.

PROSECUTORS HAD PLANNED to use such hearsay to make up for the fact that Peterson’s most recent wife is still missing and merely presumed dead – rather than an actual corpse buried away somewhere.

But the drawback to that is that Peterson’s attorneys can now seek a motion asking for the one-time Bolingbrook police sergeant to be released from the Will County Jail while the criminal case is pending in the courts.

Listening to the so-called legal experts, they want us to believe that it is a long-shot that either Black or Peterson will be released from their respective jails anytime in the near future.

But I can’t help but wonder if we run a chance of seeing either one of them any time soon walking the streets of the Chicago area. It was on Tuesday that Black’s attorneys filed the necessary paperwork to ask a judge in U.S. District Court to allow Black to post bail while judges figure out if the Supreme Court ruling truly applies to his case.

ON THE SAME day, Peterson’s attorneys let it be known they think their client should be let out of jail in Joliet while the prosecutors appeal whether court rulings related to hearsay testimony should have any bearing on that criminal case.

Actually, Black would be the last person I would ever expect to see around here. I always sensed when his company ran the Sun-Times and all the suburban newspaper properties they acquired throughout the last two decades that Lord Black of Crossharbour saw us as being a bit drab, and our newspapers as the major U.S. property he acquired when his early 1990s bid to purchase the New York Daily News fell through.

From a newspaper perspective, it would have been intriguing to see a Black-run Daily News take on the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post. Instead, we got to see Black and his aides bleed dry our local newspapers into their current shrivelled-up status.

In Peterson’s case, his attorneys think it is only fair that he be set free, since prosecutors have already have had the beginning of the trial postponed once (it was supposed to begin last month), and that putting it off indefinitely a second time is somehow cruel, if not quite unusual.

PETERSON’S ATTORNEYS ENGAGED in their own cheap-shot rhetoric, telling the Chicago Tribune that prosecutors are getting “cold feet” and are “chickening out” because of their failure to just go ahead and begin the trial.

I have to admit that I think both Peterson and Black have interesting legal theories. I’m not willing to write them off as completely absurd.

Black is dealing with the concept of “honest services,” and to what degree is someone’s professional screwups worthy of criminal charges. Peterson is dealing with “hearsay” testimony in that prosecutors want to have people testify about what Drew’s fourth, still-missing, wife told them about the death of Drew’s third wife.

I have a problem with the idea of hearsay being permitted in a court proceeding. Our judicial system is supposed to hold prosecutors up to a high ideal, and allowing hearsay here could take us down a path by which it becomes too acceptable in other criminal cases.

LIKEWISE, A PART of me worries (particularly when it comes to political corruption cases) about whether people could use a broad interpretation of “honest services” to start going after their political opponents and imprisoning them for not being of the “right” ideological beliefs.

In theory, I can understand why the two men want out of jail, although it sounds like it has been a more pleasant experience for Black (who has been able to publish his writing while incarcerated) than it has for Peterson (who has been kept in isolation so as to keep other inmates from trying to enhance their reputations by attacking – if not killing – him).

Yet I’m skeptical that either judge, whether in the federal court or the circuit court in Will County, is going to be willing to let either one of these men out of jail anytime soon. Release for either of them will draw so much hostile public attention.

-30-

This is why ideologues should not be allowed to dominate our government policy

I’m very sure that I am one of the few people who is not bothered by the presence of Roland Burris in the U.S. Senate, because I always thought the idea of having a special election to pick someone to serve for a few months before the 2010 elections take place was a waste.

In my mind, that sentiment was reinforced when I learned of a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling this week that claims we must have an election to pick a person to complete the remainder of the six-year Senate term to which Barack Obama was elected in 2004.

THE APPEALS COURT based in Chicago issued a ruling that says the governor’s authority to make appointments to fill a Senate vacancy really means he has a “duty” to issue the order for a special election.

But the appeals court also ruled that the Illinois constitution is such that it gives the governor no leeway in terms of picking a date for said elections.

Therefore, had Blagojevich gone ahead and scheduled an election to pick a replacement for Obama – rather than picked Burris out of spite to his political opponents who were leading for his impeachment and removal from office at the time – his only choice would have been to schedule that special election for Nov. 2.

That’s the same date as the general elections across the country, and also the date upon which Illinois voters will be asked to pick between Alexi Giannoulias or Mark Kirk (there are a few alternate party candidates in the running, but none who are putting together anything resembling a campaign structure that deserves to be paid attention to).

ARE WE IN Illinois really going to subject the nation’s political observers to the sight of a senator for eight weeks, to be followed up by the winner of Giannoulias/Kirk/whatever?

Are we in Illinois really that eager to give Roland Burris an unceremonial dump that we would boot him from Capitol Hill on Nov. 3, rather than Jan.3, 2011?

I would think we in Illinois would be better off creating less confusion on Election Day by just accepting the fact that we have “Roland, Roland, Roland” for another two months, and that he will be rollin’, rollin’, rollin’ out of Washington and into political retirement as of next year.

Yet I’m sure we’re going to get the ideologues who will claim some high-minded noble goal is at stake in booting Burris from Washington sooner, rather than later.

FOR THOSE OF you who think it is just as simple a matter as letting the person who wins the full six-year term on Nov. 2 take office eight weeks early, no it isn’t.

If you’re going to go to all the trouble of demanding that the courts impose a special election, you have to be prepared to have a separate full-fledged special election, and not think you can make a special case by which one person in this country who gets elected to the Senate in November can have a political bonus of two extra months.

I would think that the rest of the country would be jumping down our throats if Illinois tried to do that, because every other victorious candidate would think it unfair that their counterpart from Illinois managed to get a two-month jump start on building up seniority – just because their state couldn’t have a goofy situation such as we had in Illinois back at the beginning of 2009.

WBEZ-FM in Chicago reported that the Illinois attorney general’s office is still studying the appeals court’s ruling, trying to figure out if there is some way they can interpret it so that there won’t have to be a full-fledged election, or if this is now going to have to wind up before the Supreme Court of the United States.

BECAUSE I AM hoping Illinois does not have to go through the embarrassment of having a separate election, and having significant numbers of people get confused on Election Day and wind up casting ballots for people for the wrong post as a result.

The Chicago Tribune reported recently how Burris, during 2009, received a pension of $121,747 for his years of government service (those three terms as state comptroller, along with one as state attorney general), along with his $174,000 salary for representing Illinois (in pretty much a competent, low-key manner) in the U.S. Senate.

If that were the case, I might just have to do a write-in vote for Burris. Roland for eight more weeks, then he gets to take his bucks accumulated during the past year and await the day he gets his final rest in that glorious tomb he already has had constructed for himself.

-30-

High court appeal gives feel of Blagojevich trying to avoid trip to “death house”

Perhaps it is a sign that I covered too many executions in Illinois (7 during the 1990s, along with other inmates who appealed the process). But watching Rod Blagojevich file an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States to try to postpone his trial on assorted corruption charges is starting to feel like watching a condemned man try to find any scheme that manages to postpone his “death date.”

It is inevitable when a condemned inmate’s execution date approaches that his attorneys run through the process of filing token appeals to every court up the judicial ladder, in hopes that somewhere, someone with some legal authority will be moved enough by the plea to justify issuing a stay that postpones a trip on the gurney to the lethal injection machine.

THAT TRIP UP the legal ladder invariably winds up at the Supreme Court in Washington, where attorneys will file after-hours appeals and judges will wind up having to put in some extra duty before deciding whether or not there is any chance of legal merit to the condemned’s position.

In fact, the justices on the nation’s high court have the country split up so that each presides, so to speak, over a region. In short, it comes down to what one man thinks, and is willing to tell his (or her) colleagues on the high court what to do – since there really is little reason to have all nine justices read through the last-ditch appeals.

That is what occurred to me when I read the Chicago Tribune report that confirmed Blagojevich’s request for a delay in his trial was received late Thursday, and was sent to the chambers of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Which means that on Friday, it was Stevens’ clerks and other staff who were having to read through all the legal drivel offered up by Milorod as to why his trial should not begin in 12 days in the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois (otherwise known to us locals as the Dirksen Building).

THOSE CLERKS WILL report to Stevens, who will make the ultimate decision. Late Friday, Stevens said he would give prosecutors one week to respond in writing to Blagojevich's request. Does this mean Stevens’ last act as a Supreme Court justice will be to decide whether or not to condemn Blagojevich to a trial this summer that many people are convinced will result in his serving time in a federal correctional system (and which many Republican partisans are hoping sentences Democratic political candidates to death on Election Day come Nov. 2)?

After all, guilt by association, they will claim.

Blagojevich’s legal motion for a trial delay has just has the same morbid overtone to it that many of the last-ditch legal appeals from condemned inmates have. There is a sense to people who follow the cases that everything has already been argued, and that this final appeal to the Supreme Court is nothing more than a formality before giving the condemned man (it has been so long since Illinois put a woman to death that I don’t think it sexist to say that all the condemned are “men”) his final sendoff.

Which means we all now sit and wait for word from the court. It likely will be a sudden snippet of rejection, followed up hopefully by the sight of Milorod seriously preparing himself for trial.

IT MAKES ME feel like the next step will be someone asking Blagojevich what he would like to have for a “last meal” before the moment of truth. Will he have any last words for us?

Actually, on that last point, the answer is, “yes, he will.”

For the federal trial is likely to last into October. I wouldn’t be surprised if jury selection lasted most of the month of June (got to weed out anybody whose ideology is so intense that they feel it is their “patriotic duty” to Illinois to convict the bum) and the jury deliberations for a verdict lasted several weeks. You just know Blagojevich won’t be able to resist taking the stand on his own behalf.

Which is why I am sure that the same Democratic Party partisans who were Blagojevich’s biggest critics and led the effort to impeach him from office probably wouldn’t mind if there was some delay that put the trial off until after those Nov. 2 elections.

BLAGOJEVICH CONTENDS THAT we need to see how the Supreme Court rules with regards to the legal appeals of former Hollinger Inc. owner (which once included the Chicago Sun-Times and its many suburban newspaper properties) Conrad Black in a case that challenges the degree to which stupidity and incompetence by officials ought to be considered criminal behavior.

Considering that I have always thought Blagojevich’s conduct as governor was more about arrogance and stupidity (trying to show other Democratic Party leaders, such as Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, who the boss truly is) than truly criminal intent, it might be relevant. But I’m sure there are enough people who are going to be so willing to show they’re not showing a bias in favor of Blagojevich that they will bend over backward to oppose him.

Personally, I wish the two events (a likely Blagojevich verdict in late October, and Election Day on Nov. 2) weren’t so close together timewise because it is a ridiculous distraction, although I am not convinced that Stevens or anyone else with the Supreme Court will be inclined to do anything on Milorod’s behalf. Then again, I think most of the people who will think this is relevant are also the same types who would never have voted for Democratic Party candidates to begin with. Which means it is an irrelevant distraction.

It also means we can likely keep that June 3 date circled on our calendars for the beginning of the Rod Blagojevich Reality Show (follow the legal saga of a real-life political egomaniac) emanating from Chicago.

-30-

What is justice?

Eleven months.

I’m sure there are people who believe that the only injustice related to the criminal case against one-time Chicago alderman Edward R. Vrdolyak is that he didn’t receive a prison term when the chance occurred last year, and that he has spent the past 11 months on probation while living in his mini-mansion on the city’s East Side neighborhood. THOSE PEOPLE ARE extremely happy now, following the ruling made Friday by a federal appeals court panel that took away Vrdolyak’s punishment of five years probation and said he must be re-sentenced for his “guilty” plea on charges that he helped rig a financial deal so as to gain part of a $1.5 million finders fee.

When he got the probation, there were those who were livid at the thought that their fantasy of “Fast Eddie” sitting in a roach-infested prison cell was not going to come true. I fear too many people are going to feel pressure to feed that fantasy, rather than consider what is (or is not) the right thing to do.

Some of those people may even want him to share a cell someday with former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, but the idea of a one-time politico of Croatian ethnic background getting locked up with a Serbian politico (Milorod) sounds too much like a sick joke.

But much of this attitude has an element of sick jokes to it.

ADMIT IT. THERE are large segments of our population who look down on Vrdolyak, whose political activities of just over two decades ago in thwarting the desires of then-Mayor Harold Washington has some Chicagoans of a certain age enjoying the thought of a now elderly Vrdolyak being punished.

While I remember the sleaziness of the sentiment that caused the Washington opposition within city government during the mid-1980s, I don’t want it intruding on this case. Technically, it isn’t relevant. This just strikes me as a case with so much irrelevant history to it.

In the case of Vrdolyak, a federal appeals court panel of three judges voted 2-1 in favor of overturning the court ruling from February 2009 that resulted in the one-time Chicago alderman receiving probation (rather than time in jail) for his guilty plea on charges related to a real estate deal along Chicago’s Gold Coast neighborhood.

Vrdolyak’s “guilty” plea remains intact. But now, someone other than Judge Milton Shadur will have to impose sentence. And with the fact that this case will have the eyes of the public all over it even more intensely than they already were, a prison term seems ever so likely.

IF PEOPLE THOUGHT the outcry over Vrdolyak getting probation once was outrageous, just think of how much they will rant and rage if a second judge tries to show sympathy for him. Prosecutors are asking for a 3 ½-year prison term, and I’m wondering if some judge will feel the need to grant it just because it will make the public happy.

A part of me wonders if Vrdolyak had just been sentenced to prison initially, would it have been for a term that possibly could be nearing completion by now? Is the end result of the legal gamesmanship taking place now going to be that Vrdolyak’s fate will be dragged out for a longer period of time – perhaps one that will last the rest of his life (the man is approaching 73 years of age).

In learning of the appeals panel’s ruling, it comes down to how much of a judgment call Judge Shadur should be allowed to make. When he imposed sentence last year, Shadur said he was influenced by the fact that he could not see that anyone suffered serious financial loss due to Vrdolyak’s actions.

Judge Richard Posner wrote for that panel that Shadur did not properly calculate what constitutes financial loss, although Judge David Hamilton wrote in a dissent that he thought Shadur did consider it thoughtfully, and also was swayed by Vrdolyak’s private character.

THE LATTER FACTOR probably means that Vrdolyak has mellowed somewhat from the days when he was Washington’s most outspoken (although from from only) critic in city government.

The former factor most likely means that an appeals panel majority believes that Shadur did not properly take into account the factor that Vrdolyak is disliked enough by some Chicagoans that he must appear to be punished with prison. Other options cannot be taken into account, even if a judge seriously believes they are relevant.

What I’m now wondering is if the same people who last year criticized Shadur are now going to be critical of Hamilton? After all, he wasn’t taking enough of a knee-jerk reaction critical of Vrdolyak.

The end result of this could soon be the sight of a man in his eighth decade of life whose best/worst political days are long behind him taking up prison space. Which in my opinion seems like such a waste.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Edward Vrdolyak isn’t as free today as when he woke up Friday morning (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/prosecutors-win-bid-to-have-new-judge-resentence-vrdolyak.html). Will this legal battle (http://chicagoargus.blogspot.com/2009/02/shadur-name-to-be-linked-w-vrdolyak.html) ever come to an end.

The family law firm remains (http://www.vrdolyak.com/index.html) in place, although Eddie himself has been retired since entering his “guilty” plea.

Ryan “rule” could mean that Blagojevich won’t be broke in elder years

If the ruling of an Illinois appellate court provides any precedent, we’re going to hear a lot of grousing from the public in future years from people whose sense of vindictiveness is such that they want Rod Blagojevich penniless and destitute (preferably with a wife and kids who no longer speak to him).

The appeals court based in Chicago made a ruling Friday with regards to Blagojevich’s immediate predecessor as Illinois governor.

GEORGE RYAN GOT what his attorney, former Illinois Gov. James R. Thompson, called a victory when the court said that Ryan will get to keep a piece of the sizable government pension he would have received for more than three full decades of government service.

Specifically, Ryan will get credit for the roughly 20 years he served as a state legislator from Kankakee (rising to the rank of Illinois House speaker) and as lieutenant governor. None of the “crimes” for which he was found guilty by a jury in U.S. District Court in Chicago related to those years.

His pension credit earned during his eight years as Illinois secretary of state and four years as governor will be lost, because that is the time during which Ryan allegedly let his driver testing staff shake down unqualified drivers for bribes, did nothing to stop them, then tried to interfere with a federal investigation into those bribe solicitations.

Admittedly, that is still a huge hit for Ryan.

HIS PENSION FOR all of his time doing “the people’s business” in Illinois government would have barely exceeded $100,000 per year, every year for the rest of his and spouse Lura Lynn’s lives.

Because he only gets credit for those earlier posts, and because the most recent of that work occurred nearly 20 years ago, his pension goes down to about $65,000 per year.

Not that Ryan will receive any of it. Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate number 16627-424 will remain at the work camp that is part of the maximum-security prison at Terre Haute, Ind.

The money will go to the one-time Illinois first lady, who reportedly has been struggling financially to cover her expenses since her husband went away and state officials desiring political payback went after his pension.

SUCH A PENSION will not make her wealthy, but at least she’ll have some income coming in. That is bound to upset some people, whose disgust level for Ryan is so high that they will not be pleased unless Ryan is both incarcerated and destitute.

I would guess some of those same people have an identical attitude toward Blagojevich.

In the case of Blagojevich, the activity for which he could be indicted by a federal grand jury relates entirely to his time as governor of Illinois.

That would mean his two two-year terms as a member of the Illinois House of Representatives from the Ravenswood and Lincoln Square neighborhoods and his three two-year terms in the U.S. House of Representatives (from much of the Northwest Side and surrounding suburbs) are not included.

ANY PENSION BENEFITS he is entitled to for that government service should still have to be paid out, even though I don’t know how much of a pension Blagojevich is entitled to.

I do know that he is now eligible to start collecting it, since he is no longer on the government payroll. Once (and if) he is convicted in a federal court, state officials would be able to cut off the portion of his pension that is connected to his six years as governor.

But Blagojevich likely was counting on a significant stint as governor to bolster the amount of credit he would receive toward earning a sizable pension. I can’t believe that his 10 years in state and federal government will give him all that much.

Certainly, it won’t be enough of a financial jolt that he can afford to live at the level he appeared to be dreaming about for his retiring years.

HECK, ISN’T THAT what his involvement in the so-called selling of a U.S. Senate seat was about?

Prosecutors want us to believe that Blagojevich was offering up the prominent government post to whoever was willing to contribute the most money to help create a nonprofit organization that would someday employ Blagojevich and wife Patti at salaries that could let them live comfortably while working whenever they chose.

Personally, I’m waiting for the day when some member of the General Assembly tries to slip a bill through the Legislature that would ban anyone convicted (or maybe even charged) of a criminal act from being able to receive anything in the way of a government pension.

Perhaps they’ll try to claim it’s a bi-partisan measure by calling it the “Ryan/Blagojevich” bill.

IT WOULD BE a drastic over-reaction on the part of the Illinois Legislature, but it would also not be unheard of for the people who are part of the Statehouse Scene to lose their common sense when their politically partisan motions take over.

And when political people realize that at age 48, Blagojevich still has a couple decades (barring an accident) of life to collect pension checks, the people of Illinois will have a long time to simmer in their anger over the thought of Milorod collecting a regular check from the government.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: George Ryan’s wife (who herself is 74) is now able to collect a portion (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/02/06/ap6020518.html) of the pension that the former Illinois governor would have been eligible for had he not been sent to a federal prison.

For the time being, the unemployed Rod Blagojevich is entitled to a little bit of income for the full pension benefits (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagojevich-pension-29jan29,0,7350721.story) he qualified for during 16 years in state and federal government.