More McHenry County Blog

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) No. 11 CR 50055
)
JASON W. SMIEKEL )
UNITED STATES’ EVIDENTIARY PROFFER IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO REVOKE ORDER OF PRETRIAL RELEASE
The United States of America, by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, United States
Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, submits the following evidentiary proffer in
support of its motion to revoke the order of pretrial release for defendant Jason W. Smiekel
(hereinafter “defendant” or “Smiekel”). FN1

The Defendant’s First Murder-for-Hire Attempt (February 2011)

1. As noted in the government’s motion to revoke the pretrial release order, the
defendant approached at least six different individuals in attempts to have the intended victim
murdered. The first person was in February of 2011, when the defendant approached an as
yet unidentified individual seeking a “hit-man.” That individual, one of Smiekel’s friends,
put the defendant in contact with two male individuals (hereinafter the “two hit-men”).
These two men are the second and third individuals the defendant approached, trying to
arrange for a murder-for-hire. According to Smiekel, he paid a total of $8,000 to the two hit-

1 The government is unsure whether District Judge Frederick J. Kapala or Senior District
Judge Philip G. Reinhard will conduct the de novo review of the release order. Since no indictment
has yet been returned, no district judge has yet been assigned to the case. For that reason, the United
States will be submitting a copy of this pleading, via email, to both chambers on August 11, 2011.
men to murder the intended victim. Those payments were only the “down payments” and
Smiekel had agreed to pay an additional $7,000 after the murder. Instead of completing the
murder, the two hit-men kept the money and figuratively walked away.2

2. Smiekel advised at least two individuals (one identified in the Criminal
Complaint as the “cooperating individual” and the second identified in the Criminal
Complaint as the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) Special Agent acting
in an undercover capacity) of Smiekel’s attempts to hire the two hit-men and his payments
to them totaling $8,000. When Smiekel told the undercover ATF agent about his prior
attempt to hire the two hit-men and paying them $8,000, the conversation was audiorecorded.
3
2 The motivation for the defendant’s desire to kill another individual is unclear. However,
the following events took place in February 2011: (a) the defendant was divorced from his former
wife; (b) the defendant began a romantic relationship with his present fiancee (hereinafter
“fiancee”); (c) the fiancee and the intended victim previously had a child together; (d) the defendant
represented the intended victim in a contentious state court proceeding involving, in part, child
custody; (e) the fiancee was the other party in the court proceeding; and (f) the defendant called the
intended victim, said that he had been in a bar, had met the fiancee, that they had “made out,” and
that Smiekel could no longer represent the intended victim in the state court proceeding because of
“ethics.” The government, attempting to protect the identity of the intended victim, did not disclose
most of this information, regarding motive, to the Magistrate Judge in the detention hearing.
3 On August 2, 2011, in a recorded meeting with the undercover ATF agent, Smiekel
discussed his concerns that after the murder-for-hire by the undercover ATF agent was completed,
the two hit-men might return and try to collect the remainder of their fee from Smiekel. Smiekel
said that he would take care of that sort of conduct, but if the two hit-men tried to make trouble for
him personally, he might have to hire the undercover ATF agent again. The undercover ATF agent
understood this to be a reference to hiring him again, this time to kill the two hit-men.

The Defendant’s Second Murder-for-Hire Attempt (April-June 2011)

3. In late April to early May 2011, the defendant approached the fourth
individual.4 This individual (hereinafter referred to as the “client”) was one of Smiekel’s
clients.5 Smiekel had represented the client in a divorce proceeding and the client owed
attorney’s fees to Smiekel’s firm. Smiekel’s firm was in the process of attempting to collect
on those fees. Smiekel asked the client to connect Smiekel with someone who would “scare”
the intended victim. According to Smiekel, the intended victim was hurting Smiekel’s
girlfriend and her child.

4. Smiekel and the client met within a week. At the meeting Smiekel provided
a photograph and personal details of the intended victim, including the residence, vehicle,
and employment of the intended victim.6 Instead of just wanting to “scare” the intended
victim, Smiekel now wanted someone who would “hurt” the intended victim and suggested
breaking the intended victims’ legs. Later during this meeting, Smiekel said it wouldn’t be
too bad if the intended victim was dead.

5. Thereafter, Smiekel continued to call the client, asking if the client had found
anyone to take care of the intended victim. Smiekel also discussed his firm’s collection
efforts of the client’s legal bill. On June 14, 2011, Smiekel and the client again met.

4 The government received this information directly from this individual on August 6, 2011.

5 Smiekel is a lawyer licensed to practice in Illinois.

6 The client turned over the photograph to ATF Special Agent Sarah Tucker. The
photograph is the intended victim as set forth in the Criminal Complaint. The details, residence,
place of employment, and vehicle used, all match that of the intended victim as well.
Smiekel continued to press the client on collection of the attorney’s fees and during the
meeting, told the client to “just kill the ass-hole.”

6. On June 20, 2011, Smiekel and the client had a telephone call. During the call,
Smiekel agreed to assist the client in the collection of attorney’s fees. When Smiekel again
raised the client arranging for a hit-man, the client told Smiekel that killing the intended
victim wasn’t worth it and that Smiekel could lose everything he had. Smiekel continued to
press the client on the murder-for-hire, asking, “Will you just think about it.”
The Defendant’s Third Murder-for-Hire Attempt (July-August 2011)

7. The defendant’s third attempt to hire a hit-man to kill the intended victim is set
forth in the criminal complaint and below. On July 30, 2011, a cooperating individual
(hereafter the “CI”) advised two ATF Special Agents of the following:

a. On Wednesday, July 27th, 2011, the CI had been approached by an
individual he knows as “Jason.” Jason drives a white Lexus and resides on Sandy Creek
Drive in Algonquin, Illinois. Jason said he wanted to have an individual (hereinafter referred
to as “intended victim”) murdered in order to prevent the intended victim from giving
damaging testimony in a proceeding.7

At the time of the detention hearing, the government was aware of some sort of allegation
concerning the defendant and the intended victim and that the allegation may have been made to the
ARDC. The government has since gathered the following additional information: The intended
victim has advised ATF Special Agent Sarah Tucker that in July of 2011 he filed a complaint against
Smiekel with the ARDC. On July 27, 2011 (the same day that Smiekel approached the CI looking
for a hit-man), the intended victim received correspondence from the ARDC stating that it had
received his complaint and that it had requested that Smiekel respond to the allegations.

b. Jason is an attorney and had recently represented his girlfriend in her
divorce case. Jason indicated his girlfriend’s ex-husband, the intended victim, has
information about Jason that could get Jason in trouble and lead to a criminal indictment.
Jason had wanted to have the intended victim killed prior to a court appearance that was
scheduled to be held on Friday, July 29, 2011.

c. Jason said he previously paid two males a total of $8,000 to murder the
intended victim, with the understanding that an additional $7,000 would be paid upon
completion of the task. Jason indicated that the two males took off with the $8,000 and never
committed the murder. Jason asked if the CI could “get it done” and Jason indicated that he
was willing to pay up to $25,000 for the murder.

d. On Thursday, July 28, 2011, Jason again approached the CI. Jason
asked, “What do you got for me?” and stated, “I’m willing to do the 25. What do you need?”
Jason reiterated that the intended victim has evidence that would completely destroy Jason
and that Jason needed something done by the following day. The CI told Jason that nothing
would happen that quickly. On Friday, July 29, 2011, Jason called the CI’s cell phone.
Jason indicated that he had been able to buy himself more time in regards to the court date.
The call log on the CI’s cellular phone showed that Jason had used phone number (815) 909-
5500 to call the CI. The CI indicated Jason had called the CI two times on the morning of
July 30, 2011, but the CI had not answered the phone. The CI’s telephone showed two
missed calls from (815) 909-5500 received at 9:26 a.m. and 10:50 a.m. on July 30, 2011.

8. The CI agreed to make a recorded phone call to Jason in order to attempt to
arrange for another meeting. In the presence of agents, the CI made a recorded call to (815)
909-5500, and then indicated that the call went to voicemail. Approximately thirty minutes
later, the CI advised me that he had received a call from Jason, who had relayed that he was
currently out of town but would be willing to meet the following day.

9. Smiekel lives at the address on Sandy Creek Drive in Algonquin, Illinois, that
had been provided by the CI. The CI viewed a photograph of Smiekel and identified that
photograph as “Jason.” The CI advised he has known Jason as an acquaintance for 4 to 5
years.

10. On Sunday, July 31, 2011, the CI said that he had spoken with SMIEKEL
earlier that day and that the CI had asked if they could meet that evening. The call log on the
CI’s phone indicated an outgoing call to (815) 909-550 at 11:10 a.m. and an incoming call
from (815) 909-5500 at 11:16 a.m. At approximately 6:16 p.m., at my request, the CI called
Smiekel. During the call, Smiekel said he was currently unavailable but could meet with the
CI at 8:00 p.m. that evening. Later that day, S/A Ivancich and I gave the CI with two covert
recording devices to use during the meeting. We told the CI to advise Smiekel that the CI
knew an individual named “Chris” who would be willing to complete the task (referring to
the murder for hire) that Smiekel had discussed.

11. On the evening of July 31, 2011, the CI had a recorded meeting with Smiekel.
After the meeting, S/A Ivancich and I met with the CI. The CI turned over the recording
equipment to S/A Ivancich, and provided a piece of torn white paper with handwriting in
blue ink. The CI said Smiekel had written the intended victim’s name on the piece of paper
along with a phone number that “Chris” was to use to contact Smiekel. The piece of paper
contained the intended victim’s name, address in McHenry County, Illinois, and place of
employment. The piece of paper also contained telephone number (213) 509-0487. The CI
said that Smiekel still wanted to pay someone to kill the intended victim and had written the
intended victim’s name and address on the provided piece of paper. The CI said Smiekel had
again discussed how he had tried to have this done (via the previously mentioned unknown
males) in February 2011. Smiekel said he wanted it completed by Friday, August 5, 2011.
Smiekel was receptive to meeting with “Chris” and requested that “Chris” call Smiekel on
the phone number on the piece of paper. I reviewed the recordings of the meeting between
the CI and Smiekel. While the audio was recorded, the video did not record the meeting.
While reviewing the audio recording of the meeting, I confirmed the information provided
by the CI during the debriefing. During the meeting Smiekel said his last name was Smiekel.
Smiekel again indicated that the intended victim was about to “ruin” Smiekel and that
Smiekel had been reported to the ARDC. Smiekel asked about the proposed cost saying, “I
need to be ready money-wise.”

12. According to an online query in the McHenry County Circuit Clerk Online
Public Case Access system, the intended victim is currently listed as a defendant in a family
court matter in McHenry County.

13. On Monday, August 01, 2011, ATF Special Agent Chris Bayless, acting in an
undercover capacity posing as a “hit-man,” called (213) 509-0487 and spoke with Smiekel.
During the recorded conversation, Smiekel agreed to meet that evening at a restaurant on
Randall Road in Elgin, Illinois. At approximately 6:50 p.m., S/A Bayless entered the parking
lot at the restaurant. S/A Bayless called Smiekel on the cellular phone and described the type
of vehicle S/A Bayless was in. Shortly thereafter, Smiekel walked out of a restaurant and got
into S/A Bayless’s undercover car. S/A Bayless and Smiekel drove around. I have reviewed
the video and audio recordings of the meeting and the following summarizes the meeting:

a. Smiekel introduced himself as “Jason” and got into Special Agent
Bayless’s car. Special Agent Bayless asked Smiekel what he had going on. Smiekel said
there was a guy who was causing Smiekel family problems and problems with his livelihood.
Smiekel said six months ago he had foreseen troubles and had gone to someone else, but that
Smiekel had been ripped off. Special Agent Bayless said that he wasn’t sure whether he
wanted the job but that for the right price, anything could get taken care of.

b. Smiekel said he had a time problem and that the intended victim had
“dirt” on Smiekel that could ruin Smiekel’S career. Smiekel said there was no other solution
(meaning that the victim had to be killed). Smiekel identified the locations of the intended
victim’s place of employment and health club. Special Agent Bayless said it would cost
about “twenty” (meaning $20,000). Smiekel discussed how he could obtain the money to
pay Special Agent Bayless and agreed to pay $1,500 of the fee up front. Smiekel described
the physical appearance of the intended victim and agreed to provide a photograph of the
intended victim to Special Agent Bayless. They agreed to meet the following day at the same
restaurant.

14. On August 2, 2011, at approximately 11:39 a.m., Special Agent Bayless
received a telephone call from (213) 509-0487. Special Agent Bayless did not answer and
the call went to voicemail. He activated a recording device and called Smiekel back at (213)
509-0487. Smiekel indicated he was running late and would be at the restaurant at
approximately 12:45 p.m. At approximately 12:39 p.m., Smiekel used cellular number (213)
509-0487 to call Special Agent Bayless. During the call, Smiekel indicated that he had
arrived at the restaurant. Special Agent Bayless entered the parking lot in an undercover
vehicle and parked. Special Agent Bayless went into the restaurant, met briefly with
Smiekel, and they both went to Special Agent Bayless’s car. The meeting was recorded both
for audio and video. I have reviewed the video and audio recordings of the meeting and the
following summarizes the meeting:

a. Smiekel had obtained a different phone and had Special Agent Bayless
use his cell phone to call Smiekel’S new phone number, (818) 235-3945. Smiekel gave
Special Agent Bayless an envelope containing a small photograph of the intended victim and
$1,500 in currency. Special Agent Bayless said he had already put “things in motion,” and
that he planned on making it look like the murder stemmed from a robbery. Smiekel said that
he would have part of the money on Friday and they discussed how Smiekel would later pay
the remainder. Special Agent Bayless said that he would call Smiekel when “it’s done”
(meaning the murder had been committed).

b. Special Agent Bayless said that if he got an earlier opportunity to kill
the intended victim, he would take advantage of that and would call Smiekel after the
murder. Smiekel agreed to get $5,000 to pay Special Agent Bayless as early as the following
day. Otherwise, Special Agent Bayless would try to kill the intended victim by Thursday and
Smiekel agreed to try and pay Special Agent Bayless $10,000 right after the murder with the
rest of the fee to be paid later. The meeting ended with Special Agent Bayless saying he
would call Smiekel when the intended victim was dead.
15. Beginning at approximately 2:05 p.m. on August 4, 2011, Special Agent
Bayless and Smiekel had a series of telephone calls with Smiekel using the cell phone (818)
235-3945. During these calls, Special Agent Bayless asked whether Smiekel had the money
and Smiekel said that he had $7,000.8 Special Agent Bayless asked whether Smiekel wanted
to drive by the scene of the murder in order to confirm that the intended victim had died and
Smiekel indicated that he did not want to do so. Smiekel said that he trusted Special Agent
Bayless and would provide the $7,000 up front. They agreed to meet at the same restaurant
on Randall Road at 4:30 p.m. later that day.
16. At approximately 4:17 p.m., Special Agent Bayless and Smiekel met in a
parking lot of the restaurant on Randall Road in Elgin, Illinois. Smiekel got into Special
Agent Bayless’s vehicle and gave an envelope containing $7,000 in United States currency FN8 According to records received from BMO Harris Bank, N.A., on August 3, 2011,
the fiancee withdrew $7,000 in cash from a joint checking account of Smiekel and the
fiancee. This information was received on August 11, 2011, and was not presented to the
Magistrate Judge at the detention hearing.

to Special Agent Bayless. After discussing how Smiekel would pay the rest of the fee for the
murder, Special Agent Bayless gave the arrest signal and ATF special agents then arrested
Smiekel.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing evidentiary proffer and the arguments set forth in the
government’s motion, the government asks the Court to revoke the pretrial release order of
the defendant, Jason W. Smiekel.

Respectfully submitted,
PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
United States Attorney
BY: /s/ John G. McKenzie
JOHN G. McKENZIE
Assistant United States Attorney
308 West State Street - Room 300
Rockford, Illinois 61101
(815) 987-4444