Carpentersville Village President Bill Sarto is doing what is known as, “WAG THE DOG.”


Remember the movie, “WAG THE DOG” starring Robert DeNiro as the Spin Doctor named Conrad Brean and Dustin Hoffman played Stanely Motss [the “t” is silent] who played a famous Hollywood Director, who orchestrated a global conflict.


For those who have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it. The movie was about a President who was sort of caught with his pants down and decided to use the expertise of a Spin Doctor, to distract the public from the scandal.


Well movie fans, King Sarto is employing the same tactic, to distract the families of Carpentersville from a scandal that will engulf his political career. This political bully has used everything, but the kitchen sink to embarrass, intimidate and harass his perceived political enemies. This includes, elected officials and private citizens alike.


King Sarto expects his subjects to kneel down in his presence and to follow commands, without questions. This egomaniac now commands his appointees [Sherry Dobson, Nate Spain and Michael Sievertson] to boycott the Audit and Finance Commission meeting tonight. Of course these loyal subjects of King Sarto will follow the command of their master. It’s very unfortunate that these three civilians are going to play along with King Sarto’s political ploys and not take Carpentersville’s interests at heart.


So, why the “Wag The Dog” theory? Carpentersville President Bill Sarto had committed “PERJURY” on April 23, 2008, during a Bench Trial at the Elgin Courthouse. We do need to wait for the “written opinion” of Judge Cargerman at the same Courthouse on May 1st at 1pm, with Judge Boles presiding. If, the verdict finds Frank F. Stoneham innocent of the claims made by Bill Sarto and Paul Calusinski on the events of November 20, 2007, then the next step will be to prosecute Village President Bill Sarto of “PERJURY.”


It was very apparent that both Village President Bill Sarto and his vigilante friend Paul Calusinski lied under oath. The State Attorney did not even questioned Frank F. Stoneham, even after the State Attorney’s witnesses were discredited by Mr. Stoneham who represented himself, during the trial. He made several objections that were sustain by Judge Cargerman, when both State Attorney’s witnesses were using “hearsay” to try to discredit Mr. Stoneham. Mr. Sarto and Mr. Calusinski both couldn’t get their stories straight and also changed their answers, during cross-examination by Mr. Stoneham.


When the witnesses for Mr. Stoneham were questioned by him, they gave concise and straight answers of the events of November 20,  2007. The State Attorney made repeated objections, which were overruled by the Judge, except for one, which was based on hearsay. The State Attorney only gave one question to one of the witnesses, which was answered promptly and correctly. Seems quite queer does it not, that the State Attorney did not try to discredit Mr. Stoneham’s witnesses or for that matter, not even bother to question Mr. Stoneham? Why, you say? Because, even the State Attorney knew she had already lost her case, after the cross-examination by Mr. Stoneham. Mr. Sarto and Mr. Calusinski got caught in a web of lies and we know, it’s harder to remember lies, than to tell the truth.


May 1st may be the day that King Sarto may have to consider to abdicate his throne. But, I’m sure that like most tin pot dictators, he would rather watch the Village of Carpentersville burn to the ground, before he’s forced out of office.


Just my thoughts,



1 Comment

Filed under Aunt Brenda's gossip corner

One response to “WAG THE DOG!

  1. carpentersville2

    Here’s the latest update on the “written opinion” by the presiding Judge Alan W. Cargerman.

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition to Revoke Conditional Discharge filed November 21, 2007, as to defendant’s prior conviction for disorderly conduct [720 ILCS 5/26-1[a][1]West 2006], be and is hereby denied.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Revoke Supervision filed December 28, 2007, as to defendant’s prior disposition for assault [720 ILCS 5/12-1[a] [West 2006], be and is hereby denied.

    This legal meaning in laymen’s term means that Frank F. Stoneham has won both cases against the charges brought up by Carpentersville Village President Bill Sarto and Paul Calusinski.

    The Assault charge will be dropped against Mr. Stoneham

    So, what does this all means? The Judge has ruled that the new charges brought up on the two above dates were not credible. Mr. Stoneham is innocent, but what does this say about Bill Sarto and Paul Calusinski’s false charges and accusations? Hmmmm.

    Just my thoughts,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s