Five Computers, Fourteen Months
What is the story about those
seized computers? In October of 2006, on the basis of
extremely tenuous information obtained from Tony Cardiel's son while he was in detention and undergoing an involuntary lie detector test,
In the case of the computer hardware, Tony and his family had clear knowledge of what was taken, since it amounted to every system in the house: two newer desktop computes; an
older desktop computer no longer in use; a new notebook computer in use at the
time for college coursework; and an older notebook computer no longer in regular
use. There was no apparent discretion used by the detectives in their decision to remove every single household computer. No consideration
whatsoever was given to the disruption of vital household functions--such as
business and personal email communications and web-base classwork--caused by their actions. Nor was any understanding exhibited for a difference in risk-level between the system(s) specifically targeted for the investigation and those belonging to the resident college student and to the Christian
housewife.
Even allowing for Sheboygan County's indiscriminate "SWAT Team" approach in the execution of their search warrant, it is a fact that only the data on the computer hard drives were required for the investigation. Though these drives could easily have been removed from their respective computers, the entire systems were taken from the household with not so much as an apology
or an estimate as to when they would be returned. Little did Tony and his
family dream that they would be without their computers for over a year, during which time the newer computers depreciated substantially in value.
Nor did Tony seriously imagine that this police action would lead to felony
charges and incarceration. Instead, the family patiently awaited return
of their belongings.
We now know that none of the images in question were found on the system specifically targeted on the basis of statements made by Tony's son in his deposition.
This fact is, in itself, damning to the prosecution's case. Add to this the latest revelation that the material scraped up by law enforcement after more than a year of intensive efforts amounted to nothing more than four pieces of questionable evidence of indeterminate origin and nature, and you clearly have a case that should have been dropped by the judge without hesitation at its first hearing. However, the nature of the accusations have made Tony's case more political than criminal, and it appears the legal system is hesitant to allow the weight of truth to prevail. It would seem that public outcry over excessive leniency--as inappropriate as it is to this case--is the force feared by even the most stout-hearted of judges. Such fear could have tragic results.
While being questioned himself, Tony made statements that make it clear he did
not feel he had anything to hide. Rather, he wished to convey with
honesty and openness to his questioners the fact that, to his knowledge, the
family computers had only been used appropriately and lawfully.
Tony made statements that hurt
his cause during his questioning. One might wonder what he was thinking when he spoke them. The answer is that Tony's words reflect his lifelong belief in honesty as the best policy. He felt he could speak frankly to men who had gone out of their way to make him feel his comments were off the record, with no possible reason for their being turned against him. No indication had yet been hinted that he was to be arrested and charged with felony crimes. He was convinced it was not anyone's right to indict him for his
words and attitudes any more than he could indict them for theirs. In retrospect
this was a very naive expectation, but it was one based upon a common belief that law enforcers are here to protect and serve...not slander.
Tony should not have stepped foot
inside the courthouse without legal representation. As a result of his
misplaced trust and characteristic openness, Tony made himself vulnerable to
exploitative sensationalism by the Sheriff's department, the local press, and numerous
Internet websites. Their treatment was highly inconsistent with the cooperation Tony had
offered to law enforcement and with the demonstrated low risk he presented to
the community.
Tony was forced to succumb to the
indignities of a week in the
We believe the entirety of this
process has amounted to a gross miscarriage of justice whose primary victims
are Tony Cardiel, his family, and the acquaintances who don't know what to
think. Middle class Americans are generally loathe to believe that law
enforcement could be guilty of such systematic misbehavior. Tony’s
supporters can now say without hesitation: "Believe it!"
Tony is a man with restraint
and moral character. Tony's way has been to live within the bounds of the
law and to keep his personal interests private without the need for
extraordinary measures to do so. Our constitution ensures this right.
We encourage anyone with a sense of this terrible injustice to speak out against it by emailing your comments for posting on this website and/or writing a letter directly to the Sheboygan County Prosecutor demanding Tony's case be dropped. Thank You!
Tony's Golden Rule
If you were shocked by the news
accounts about Tony,
it is probably safe to say you have been a friend, acquaintance, or associate in his past or present. You probably were well aware
of his warm, congenial personality—of an ebullient intellectual
always ready with a word of encouragement. If you knew Tony well enough,
you may even have seen beneath his public surface to a soul which combined
youthful spirit with the wisdom of age.
Tony has always lived his life with attention to propriety, but above all by the Golden Rule. Though any topic
could be raised and debated at length during a family meal, most often the
grist was political, philosophical, or educational in nature. The subject
of s-e-x was raised only as deemed a necessary part of parental
responsibility—ala the birds and the bees. There was an unspoken taboo
against gratuitous discussion of those topics. There was no
open use of profanity or innuendo. Tony modeled an attitude that,
though nothing to be ashamed of, libido was a private thing, not to be flaunted
or extolled. Keeping it private was, in his world, an act not of
deception but of responsibility.
Tony would hope that all those who have known him in the past rest assured in the truthfulness of that knowledge. He is the same good man with the same remarkable strengths and lovable humanity as before. He is the same laudable example of a dedicated professional whose efforts and behavior throughout his many years as a public schoolteacher are unimpeachable.
The most pernicious result of the injustice done to Tony will be the loss of any true friend’s belief in him. This would serve the purposes of his misguided foes and produce lasting scars.
We hope that each of you who have loved the Tony you have known in the past, will search your own souls for the compassion and understanding he would so naturally and easily reciprocate.
That First Stone
An Editorial
You may disapprove of another's
prurient interests. That is anyone’s prerogative. Yet as long as one remains within the bounds of the law he must not be prosecuted, or
persecuted, for them, lest each member of our society be subject to similar
treatment.
I, myself, find repugnant the unbridled love of firearms, blind faith in authority,
and reactionary conservativism. Yet I do not seek to jail and criminalize law abiding citizens who prescribe to any of these interests. Popularity and propriety should not be
measures for deciding which of our Constitutionally granted freedoms are
acceptable and which are not.
We live in an amazing
country. If the majority of Americans decided they supported the
outlawing of all that is considered immoral or indecent, a prohibition could
come to pass. Right or wrong, condemnation would then be a matter of
legality, not personal preference. Of course the process must be
Democratic and Constitutional, ensuring this particular example's improbability. In the meantime it is deplorable to apply a double
standard that excuses oneself or one’s acquaintances from
judgment for their interests while condemning others for theirs.
The police action my dad suffered was as unexpected to him as it would have to any law abiding person. No matter how innocent or pure of heart, anyone can be
subject to the same treatment if we allow the simple word of others to be basis
for removal of our rights to privacy, life, liberty, or the pursuit of
happiness.
All of this is reminiscent of the
dynamic at work during the 17th century
Those tragically shameful episodes came to their inevitable ends, but only after irreversible damage had been done. This is the heinous nature of paranoia in politics. My dad's experience provides living testimony to Wisconsin's schizophrenic justice system. Serious offenders work the system to offend again; repentant offenders are denied the chance at rehabilitation; and the falsely accused are branded as criminals even before they can begin the process of exonerating themselves.
If we are open to solutions, a lesson can be taken from a man who remains joyful, loving, and understanding,
even after his own honor was so senselessly indicted: let go the senseless stones,
that your heart's mercy may prevail.
