Bobby F. Weatherly

  • Recommendation Termination
  • Decision Termination
  • Length of process 11 months November 22, 2019 to October 17, 2020 Closed
  • Investigative Agency Not Specified

Charged with violating 3 rules on 9 counts

Show all counts
Rule 14 3 counts

Making a false report, written or oral.
Rule 2 3 counts

Any action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department.

Rule 1 3 counts

Violation of any law or ordinance.

Board Member Votes & Decisions

Majority Decision

0 agreed

Agreed with the final decision of the board

0 disagreed

Disagreed with the final decision of the board

0 did not vote

Did not vote or were not present for voting

The facts in this case are not meaningfully in dispute. Respondent signed an Application in his eviction lawsuit. The Application includes the following language directly next to the signature line: “Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/1 – 109, making a statement on this form that you know to be false is perjury, a Class 3 Felony.” Despite being warned against making a false statement, the evidence established that Respondent answered three questions in the Application falsely, each false statement set forth in a separate Specification.
Relevant to Specification No. 1, in response to question 4b of the Application, which asked the applicant to disclose the source of money received by his household by checking one of 8 boxes, Respondent admitted to failing to check a box. To the contrary, slash marks were written through the boxes, including the choice that applied to Respondent (“my employment”) and left blank the area in which he was to disclose the “total of all money received.” That representation was false as Respondent was in fact receiving a salary from the Chicago Police Department at the time he completed the Application. Indeed, copies of his check stubs during the relevant time period were admitted into evidence without objection. By failing to disclose his employment and the salary he was receiving, Respondent perjured himself, violated 735 ILCS 5/1-109, and perpetuated a fraud against the court who relied on the false information as a basis to waive Respondent’s fees and costs in the lawsuit. Respondent did not deny that his responses to question 4b were false. Instead, he testified that he followed the direction of his attorney when completing the form. It was demonstrated during cross examination, however, that Respondent had previously stated (in a statement to the Bureau of Internal Affairs) that he could not even recall whether his attorney had helped him fill out the Application. Respondent’s testimony at the hearing was thus not only inconsistent with his prior statements, but not credible on its face. Indeed, even assuming its truth, the Board does not accept that a member of the Chicago Police Department would allow himself to be directed to commit a felony. The Board thus declines to credit Respondent’s testimony and finds him guilty of this Specification.

Relevant to Specification No. 2, in response to Question 4c of the Application, which
asked the Applicant to disclose the amount of money received by his household, Respondent failed to disclose any salary at all. He failed to disclose that he received a salary from the Chicago Police Department and he failed to disclose the amount of his salary. And in response to the question, “Total of all money received,” the number “$0” was handwritten.
Respondent did not deny that these responses were untruthful. Instead, he again provided excuses that the Board declines to credit. Specifically, he testified that he did not write “$0” on the form. However, Respondent’s statement was again discredited on n cross-examination, as evidence was presented that Respondent had in fact provided an earlier statement to the Bureau of Internal Affairs during which he admitted to writing “$0,” but then stated that he thought the question referred to whether he received a pension. The Board declines to credit Respondent’s testimony, as it was clear from the evidence presented that Respondent knowingly made a false material statement on the Application. Respondent perjured himself a second time and failed to accept any responsibility for the omissions made in relation to question 4c and the Board thus finds him guilty of this Specification.

As relevant to Specification No. 3, question 4e of the Application asked the applicant to
check boxes that describe things owned, such as a bank account, real estate, or a vehicle. In response to this question, Respondent checked the box that stated, “None of the above.” This statement was not true, however, as Respondent admitted that he did in fact own a vehicle at the time.
As with the other Specifications, Respondent testified that his attorney did not tell him to
complete question 4e and that he did not make the check mark in the box for “None of the above.” However, upon cross-examination, it was pointed out that when he gave an earlier statement to the Bureau of Internal Affairs he stated that he checked the box for “None of the above” and that he did not understand that checking that box would be interpreted to mean he did not have a vehicle. As with the other Specifications, the Board declines to credit Respondent’s testimony as both inconsistent and not and finds him guilty of this Specification.

Minority Opinions