THANK YOU TO ALL THE MEDIA WHO ARE FOLLOWING THE CASE AND ALSO TO THOSE WHO SHOWED UP AT THE PRESSER LAST WEEK. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL THE DEPUTIES WHO HAVE MY BACK. WHY DO THEY HAVE MY BACK? BECAUSE THE ARTICLE THAT WAS POSTED AT THE COOK COUNTY COALITIONS WEBSITE WAS DISTRIBUTED TO EVERY DEPUTY THE SHERIFF EMPLOYS. AFTER THEY READ THAT, DEPUTIES COME TO ME FROM OTHER DIVISIONS WITH SUPPORT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT I AM BEING WRONGFULLY HELD. TO MAKE IT EASIER ON EVERYONE WHO IS TRYING TO CATCH-UP, HERE IS THE LINK TO THAT ARTICLE AND I HAVE PUT BELOW THE SALIENT PART OF IT. WITHOUT REVEALING WHO IS THE OFFICER BEHIND THE ARTICLE, I CAN SAY HE IS A VERY INTELLIGENT, THOUGHTFUL OFFICER WHO WAS DOING HIS DUE DILIGENCE AND QUESTIONING ME ABOUT MY CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT INFORMING ME THAT HE WAS WRITING AN ARTICLE ABOUT ME. WHEN HE WAS DONE, HE TOLD ME I HAD BEEN COMPLETELY TRUTHFUL THEN REVEALED THAT HE HAD DONE INVESTIGATIONS.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

The Fanady Paradox

Few stories expose Cook County’s intersection of politics, privilege, and punishment as starkly as that of Steve Fanady, a 61-year-old businessman held in Cook County Jail for civil contempt – not a criminal charge.

In 2011, amid his divorce from Pamela Harnack, a Cook County judge valued his estate at $7.3 million and awarded Harnack 120,000 shares of CBOE stock – then worth roughly $2.9 million.

Years later, litigation revealed that roughly one-third of those shares were tied up in an ownership dispute with Jerome Israelov, Fanady’s former business partner. Although the court acknowledged Israelov’s claim, it never amended the decree.

By 2020, with the stock’s value soaring, the court ordered Fanady to produce the 120,000 shares or pay $10 million – a sum reflecting appreciation and related obligations. Fanady argued that he no longer held the stock, and that part of it was not legally his to transfer. The court disagreed, found him in civil contempt, and ordered his detention until he purged the contempt.

He has remained incarcerated for more than three years – for debt he contends he cannot pay, tied to assets he no longer possesses. During that confinement, both of Fanady’s parents died – a loss that renders his civil detention not merely a question of law, but of humanity itself.

The July 31, 2024 circuit court opinion by Judge Michael A. Forti described Fanady’s defense as “woefully deficient” and his testimony as “not credible.” The case itself states:

“Although the Court had always intended to issue a written ruling containing specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, this Court ultimately issued a brief oral opinion.”

Judge Forti elaborated further during the proceeding:

“Rather than waiting for me to issue my opinion that is going to ultimately deny Mr. Fanady’s request for relief, given his lack of evidence, even though I convened a multi-hour hearing on this, why don’t I just memorialize today that judgment because I found his case to be woefully deficient, and I found him [Mr. Fanady] not to be credible.”

The tone of this denial is not only punitive but also deeply personal – insinuating that the decision to deny Steve Fanady’s release was based as much on opinion as on law. What should have been a written ruling containing specific findings of fact and conclusions of law became, instead, an oral rebuke that blurred the line between judicial reasoning and personal disdain.

That phrasing invites an uncomfortable question: in a case orbiting powerful social networks like the Union League Club of Chicago, could proximity itself – not proof – have shaped perception?

Pamela Harnack is the daughter of Don Steger Harnack, a former President of the Union League Club – one of the state’s most influential civic institutions.

There is no evidence of judicial bias – but in a jurisdiction where social and professional circles so frequently overlap, even the appearance of influence matters.

Fanady’s confinement now sits at the crossroads of legality and morality. Under Article I §14 of the Illinois Constitution, “No person shall be imprisoned for debt, unless he refuses to deliver up his estate for the benefit of his creditors.”

After more than three years, the coercive intent of Fanady’s detention has faded; what remains looks indistinguishable from punishment for debt – the very condition the Constitution forbids.

Yet his case receives little coverage, perhaps because the moral dissonance is too sharp: a man held indefinitely for a civil judgment in a jail run by a sheriff who calls himself a reformer.