These 'facts' were uniformly ones that falsely, unfairly and repeatedly portrayed Mr.
Schock as dishonest and of bad character, and, even worse, the represented 'facts' were false or misleading half-truths."They state, for example, that both Haney — a former Peoria Journal Star reporter — and Rogers were shown incomplete bank statements of Schock's, implying that he deposited funds from the sale of Super Bowl tickets bought by the campaign into his personal account to avoid bouncing a check.
- Free online chat with sex girls without registration
- dating for turkish girls club
- Chat with 100 girls
- I m looking for 100 free online flirting
- 2 way sex video chat with woman
The defense argues that the complete bank statement showed plenty of money in the account."The government misled the grand jury and witnesses before it by failing to show witnesses the entire record (one full page). Bass instead showed only the select portion that suited his purpose," the filing reads.
Defense lawyers also claim that prosecutors questioned Haney about claims Schock's campaign account paid down the balance on the lawmaker's vehicle loan, despite having testimony from Peoria auto dealer Jeff Green that it was a paperwork error on the part of the dealership.
Rather, they allege their own interviews with potential witnesses show differences in statements between the official reports and their reports.
As such, they are asking for a full review by the court to ensure the rules of evidence are followed. Andy Kravetz is the Journal Star public safety reporter.
The filing — broad elements of which have been previewed in prior defense claims — attempts to paint a picture of an overzealous prosecution, going beyond the bounds of fact-finding and instead bent only upon charging and convicting.
Among their claims: Prosecutor Tim Bass "engaged in a practice of informing ... Schock of 'facts' outside those witnesses' knowledge.The motion also mentions defense attorneys have only interviewed a fraction of the 100 plus witnesses which could be a sign that an early January 2018 trial setting might be in jeopardy. The start date of the trial has already been moved once; it was supposed to begin last month. The charges allege a course of conduct that began when Schock, a Peoria Republican, was first elected to Congress in 2008 and continued until October 2015, about six months after he resigned from office.In the 92-page filing, defense attorneys claim the conduct is "a sorry example of one of the most fundamental abuses of prosecutorial authority that can occur."In essence, they say, prosecutors decided they wanted to indict Schock, then set about finding something they could charge him with.The material, they claim, could contain information that could bolster Schock's case that he didn't do anything wrong.