A former Joliet Township trustee is seeking to dismiss pandemic fraud charges by contending he was the subject of vindictive prosecution by Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

The latest motions from Karl Ferrell, 46, of Joliet, represent further efforts by his attorneys to seek a pretrial dismissal of the case that was filed on Dec. 14, 2022.

Ferrell is charged with fraudulently obtaining $39,623 in federal Paycheck Protection Program loans and $11,203 in state unemployment benefits. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The vindictive prosecution motion is set for a hearing on June 29. Ferrell is also scheduled on that day to go to trial on separate charges of failing to file income tax returns between 2017 and 2021.

Last year, Will County Judge Jessica Colón-Sayre denied motions from Ferrell’s attorneys to suppress evidence and to dismiss the indictment based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Colón-Sayre has also denied a request from Ferrell’s attorneys to appeal her ruling.

In April, Ferrell’s attorneys filed a motion claiming Glasgow’s office investigated him because of his public advocacy and his refusal to step down as Joliet Township trustee several years ago.

Ferrell is a Black Lives Matter activist who has advocated for police accountability in Joliet.

“Mr. Ferrell made the unfortunate decision to stand up to the state’s attorney’s office and fight to remain in office representing the citizens of Joliet Township and was criminally investigated for the decision,” according to the motion from the Tomczak Law Group.

Assistant State’s Attorney Michael Casson filed a response that called Ferrell’s claim “risible.”

“Defendant’s related contention that he is being prosecuted as a result of his public advocacy and not because of his clear commission of crimes is risible. Just to state the claim is to demonstrate its sheer ludicrousness,” Casson said.

Casson said the assertion is “absurd” because it would mean anyone who criticized Glasgow’s office could not be prosecuted.

In a statement, Glasgow’s office said their office brings charges only after a careful review of the evidence and applicable law. The office said information in Ferrell’s case was presented to a grand jury, which found probable cause and returned an indictment.

In 2021, Glasgow’s office notified Joliet Township that Ferrell was not qualified to hold elected office because of his past felony record. They filed a lawsuit against Ferrell the following year when he refused to step down.

Will County Judge John Anderson ruled it was indisputable that Ferrell has multiple felony convictions and township code clearly states a person is not eligible for office if they’ve been convicted of a felony at the time they take the oath of office.

Anderson’s ruling was upheld by the 3rd District Appellate Court.

In a court filing, Ferrell’s attorneys said he “consistently led many protests” against Glasgow and the “actions and inactions” of his office, as well as “law enforcement in general.”

Ferrell’s attorneys said he was also “community organizing” in favor of the SAFE-T Act. In 2022, Glasgow joined numerous prosecutors in a lawsuit to stop the abolishment of cash bail under the SAFE-T Act. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld no-cash bail.

Ferrell’s attorneys pointed to the “timing” of the investigation of Ferrell.

“While the simple fact of applying for a [Paycheck Protection Program] loan presents no evidence of criminality, the fact [Glasgow’s office] chose to begin their investigation into Mr. Ferrell three weeks after he refused their demand to resign is clear evidence of the motive of [Glasgow’s office] to punish the defendant,” Ferrell’s attorneys said.

In Casson’s response, he argued Ferrell’s attorneys failed to show objective evidence of “animus or retaliatory motive” from prosecutors and further failed to show evidence the prosecution of Ferrell would not have occurred” without such motives.”

Casson disputed the timing of the charges were evidence of vindictive prosecution based on the separate case where Ferrell was fighting to stay in elected office.

“[A] prosecutor is not required to wait for unrelated civil litigation to be completed before bringing criminal charges,” Casson said.