Originally Posted by Spock View Post



Yea. evil librul's let them go! Your Spidy sense, oops, "common sense", tells you so.

Turns out the judge just retired and there's an article about him:

https://www.theherald-news.com/2017/...-work/ahkx3d0/

Here's an excerpt:

It appeared the defendant was used to challenging authority.

Before being taken back to the county jail, he mentioned several issues with the charges brought against him, then started asking different court personnel for their names – his manner becoming slightly belligerent.

“I’m Judge Daniel Rozak,” the man at the bench said in a deep and dry tone. “I’m surprised you haven’t heard of me.”

While attorneys chuckled as the belligerence evaporated, the jail inmates who were sitting behind the newly indicted – some who faced life sentences – burst into raucous laughter.

The transcript could be used as evidence that Rozak – who retires this week after a 40-year legal career and 21 years on the bench – is aware of his reputation as the harshest judge in Will County.

“I think I’ve probably been subbed out more than the average judge,” Rozak said. “There are, I think, times attorneys have wanted to keep a case with me, but will say ‘My client heard all these stories in the county jail...’ ”
And guess what? He's a Republican!

So it seems that the only thing you contributed to this thread that's correct is when you said "Okay, I got it wrong".
What? This doesn’t prove anything. So what, he’s a Republican? Today there is little difference between Republicans and Democates. Both parties are liberal. George Bush senior was a Republican too and he was about as liberal as you can get. There is a reason Trump was able to get wrestle away the party’s nomination from the Republican establishment. The average Joe had lost faith about in the Republican Party.

I said I was a conservative. I didn’t say I was a Republican: There is a big difference between a conservative and a Republican.

Look, this discussion is not about Republican or Democrat, consevative or liberal. It’s about this case. I haven’t spent much time looking into this case. And by the replies I’ve been getting, I can tell nobody else has either. All they did is read one article and run with it.

The article said the judge threw out the case. The article never said why. Has anybody done any research into this and read the case briefing? I haven’t, and I doubt if anybody else has either. We have no idea why the judge threw out the case. All we have is a bunch of people speculating, me included.

When I read the article and went back and read several others, there were several things (I’ve already mentioned) that to me indicated these 5 people were probably guilty of the charges. Since the burden of proof is high (and rightfully so) on the state, the case probably wasn’t strong enough to get a conviction.

Kind of like OJ got free in our courts, but was convicted in civil court since the burden of proof wasn’t so high.

Look, you guys can believe what you want. I don’t care about this case. My main point is just because some judge threw out a case doesn’t mean the case didn’t have merit or that the defendents weren’t guilty; Just because someone is found not guilty, it doesn’t mean the person is innocent. Again, look at OJ. Our court system found him not guilty, but most people still think he was guilty....that is except the already converted.

That’s probably the situation with this case. The people who are anti-casino will see it through their rose colored glasses, where they see every casino and police force as evil and trying to stick it to the AP. This article was written to these people.