By: Diane Benjamin
I wonder if the judge who sentenced Matt Sorensen to only 1 year in jail knows he is still telling everyone (but the judge) he is innocent?
There is another question that still hasn’t been answered:
Who is the 3rd person?
Remember the un-named co-schemer?
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/01/05/393755.htm
Two pled guilty meaning #3 didn’t have to testify. So who is #3 and what happened to them?
How long would you be in jail for the same crime?
.
.
.
Sorensen should have gotten the maximum sentence. His attorney argued Sorensen was manipulated into participating in the scheme. This is a slap on the wrist for him and a slap in the face for law abiding citizens.
So a former county board member/former State Farm employee wields enough sway to get a light sentence????? That is infuriating!!!!
Typical corrupt RINO. McLean County is lousy with them.
With all due respect, Maggie, I don’t think corruptions wears a label. I don’t think this has much to do with a RINO, a DINO or even a PALOMINO!
What is does have to do with is CORRUPTION.
It has to do with integrity, credibility and honor, and ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS who hold positions of public trust, that we hope to put our public trust in.
What is exhibits with unquestionable clarity is that character should be questioned and held to a new and higher standard than what we have typically gauged that by, ie, a fallible opinion.
We had better begin looking at public servants a little more stringently and stop assuming because they are there – or want to be – that they are good or will do the right thing.
Is money the root of all evil?
Matt Sorensen proved it may have been his downfall, not his political label.
It’s OK to steal $370K from State Farm, just don’t get caught taking food for your family @ the store!
Just THINK how far that money would have gone toward “The better good”!!
Instead it buys trips and steaks for fat cats who NEED a gym membership!
There’s several concerns that arise with Sorensen’s punishment –
From a positive perspective, many would say everyone deserves a second chance, that Matt was a nice guy, and his public service record warranted a mitigated sentence.
A second chance doesn’t relieve the responsibility to impose a punishment to fit the crime.
A nice guy don’t always mean a good guy.
And his public service record, at least his actions during his premeditated criminal enterprise, should cast serious shadows over the integrity of this man in every aspect of his life.
Sorensen’s sentencing judge was quoted as stating “it was a thinking man’s crime”, and this was to imply it differentiated from crime in general – would that be a non-thinking man’s crime?
How much was Sorensen thinking if, as he admitted, he was deceived during the entire multi-year criminal enterprise?
And, if that’s the best Sorensen can think, should we question his actions and votes while he was serving as public servant?
What the hell is a thinking man’s crime?
And the local citizenry should believe that because it wasn’t directly connected to any County business, that should be considered somewhat justified and applied as a mitigating factor leaning toward leniency?
And, finally, Sorensen is “sincerely sorry”. He wasn’t sorry before he got caught!
Had he not gotten caught, would have Sorensen’s conscience rehabilitated him and he would have voluntarily returned the money and turned himself in?
Give us a break.
One year for nearly a half a million dollars?
Justice?
Finn Dalcassian
Well said!