Shelby County – Chris Boehm Assertion of Bribery and Official Misconduct In ARDC Complaint Fails –

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

We first exposed Chris Boehm’s failed ARDC complaint in this article where he made unfounded allegations to the ARDC in his obsession with the former State’s Attorney Rob Hanlon.  We believe his obsession with Hanlon is based on the fact Hanlon had represented us in a few cases before his appointment to the State’s Attorney position in February of 2023.

Once again Boehm has filed another ARDC complaint filled with his common misrepresentations and drama-filled perception of what he thinks is going on.  This most recent filing didn’t make it off the starting line as the ARDC saw it for what it was, nothing. We believe it necessary to go through his complaint and expose the method of his attempted persuasion.  While he may persuade some people to believe his narrative of events, most are able to see it for what it is.

From the complaint:

“During Mr. Hanlon’s tenure, several events occurred which seem to be improper. Latest among these events was an apparently improper $74,030 single payment directed by Mr. Hanlon to Ms. Denise Ambroziak, his First Assistant State’s Attorney. This payment has decimated the budget for the current Shelby County State’s Attorney, hampering the effective operation of that office.”  (emphasis added)

Most interesting in his opening paragraph is the lack of facts to support any of his comments.  Note how he creates the negative narrative without any specific facts, “several events occurred which seem to be improper“.  I wonder if the refrigerator purchase by the former SA with his own money was one of those events as he tried to make a big deal about that when it happened yet sat silent when the current SA made the same type of purchase and actually did use public funds for the purchase.

The “apparently improper” claim is what Boehm wants them to believe, but how special is it that he, a PHD, failed to point out any specifics as to what was allegedly improper?  Considering that he attached the agreement to his complaint and that they closed the file without even requiring a response, it indicates they do not agree with Boehm’s view on the matter.  We must note we have not seen any such public disclosure of his second failed complaint.

To claim the payment made decimated the budget is a fabrication as anyone looking at the actual budget for that office can see it was not decimated.  Please do not take our word for that. Go read the article we published on the matter that included the budget figures.  The fact of the matter is the new State’s Attorney did not realize she could make budget transfers from within her own budget.  That admission came out during a recent county board meeting.

“According to responses to FOIA requests, there was no employment contract between the Shelby County State’s Attorney’s Office and Ms. Ambroziak, who was apparently an “at-will” employee entitled to no guaranteed payments upon separation.” (emphasis added)

The fact a FOIA request failed to produce an actual document does not mean there was no employment agreement or contract as the good Dr. wants people to believe.  A verbal agreement was made and while there is no actual public record it does not mean no employment contract exists.  Much like the “verbal agreement” with the local farmer in Shelby County to plant beans.  The assertion that the employee was “apparently” an at-will employee is nothing more than Boehm’s belief, once again based on zero actual supporting facts.

“The county board did not approve the payment or the agreement.”

The above statement is yet again another misrepresentation of the facts.  The county board approved the payment during a county board meeting, much like many payments made before actual approval from the board. As far as the agreement, he is correct, the county board did not approve it………because the county board has no authority to approve agreements a State’s Attorney enters into as that office is part of the Executive Branch of State Government.  While county boards have budget authority over the office and the setting of how many assistants an SA can have, that is where it ends.  Boehm’s failure to understand the most basic principles of how local government operates is par for the course.

“Finally, I have found no authority for Mr. Hanlon’s assertion that his resignation required termination of Ms. Ambroziak’s employment. Instead, based on the information available, it seems that Mr. Hanlon directed this payment, and Ms. Ambroziak accepted the payment, without any lawful authority or purpose. Mr. Hanlon’s payment, and Ms. Ambroziak’s acceptance thereof potentially violated 720 ILCS 5/33-3 (Official Misconduct) and potentially violated 720 ILCS 5/33-1 (Bribery).” (emphasis added)

“I have found no authority“.  Oh, so since he can’t find authority, it must be illegal.  Based on the information available? The only information provided is his interpretation of events.  His comments should send a wake-up call to everyone. Boehm finds no authority and his opinion is based on information available.  Since he failed to speak with either party to the agreement it’s understandable why his information is limited but that laziness does not constitute a crime but rather poor research. Can you imagine a world where you sign a severance/settlement agreement with a government agency and since Dr. Boehm can’t find any lawful authority it somehow constitutes official misconduct and bribery?  To claim Ambroziak accepted the payment without any purpose is a pretty amazing comment, even for Boehm.  The purpose was spelled out in the agreement but maybe he missed the part where you have to read the agreement to understand its purpose.

The Official Misconduct Act is pretty straightforward, and we find it most telling that Boehm fails to even point to a single criteria in that statute which would apply in support of his frivolous allegations.

The Bribery portion of the Official Misconduct provisions is crystal clear, and we must wonder if Boehm might be entitled to a refund on his higher education.  Every section, (a-e), requires “intent to influence the performance” language. How would a terminated employee influence the performance of anything if they are not employed?

“Mr. Hanlon’s and Ms. Ambroziak’s conduct potentially constitutes a criminal act reflecting adversely on his and her honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer and involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” (emphasis added)

Did Boehm’s complaint involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation?  We note he failed to provide proof of any criminal act as his opinion and failure to understand the powers of an office is not proof.

What did the ARDC say about Boehm’s second attempt to have Hanlon disciplined?

“We have reviewed the communication and have determined that no action is warranted. We have so advised Mr. Boehm.”

We must note there are other local social media propaganda supporters who also filed ARDC complaints, and those too failed and will be exposed in future articles.