McHenry County Blog

Terry Ekl, the attorney for McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, has filed the following in reply to a motion by Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hannretty Quest Consultants International for Judge Joseph McGraw.

The following is the court filing by Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty of Quest Consultants International asking that Judge Joseph McGraw recuse himself in McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s attempt to have the two and Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen held in contempt of court.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE

NOW COME the Defendants, ROBERT SCIGALSKI and PATRICK HANRETTY, by and through their attorneys, J. STEVEN BECKETT and ROGER B. WEBBER of BECKETT & WEBBER, P.C., and present the following Memorandum in support of their Motion for Reousal.

BACKGROUND

On or about January 10, 2013 , Plaintiff, Louis A. Bianchi, filed a Petition for Adjudication of Criminal Contempt against Defendants Thomas K. McQueen, Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty. All of the allegations in the Petition stem ůom an investigation and prosecution of Plaintiff, Bianchi which came about as follows. On September 18, 2009, McHenry County Circuit Judge Gordon Graham appointed Henry C. Tonigan as a special state’s attorney and Defendant McQueen was appointed to “assist” to conduct an investigation in McHenry County. McHenry County State’s Attorney, Louis Bianchi, Plaintiff herein, had an interest in the Subject matter and was therefor conflicted. (Petition paragraph and Exhibit A., Hereinafter Pet. par. 1, Ex. A).

Quest Consultants International Limited (Hereinafter Quest) and several of its employees including defendants, Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty were retained by Tonigan and McQueen as special investigators and appointed by Judge Graham as agents and investigators to a special grand jury. (Pet, par. 3, EX. B.) That grand jury returned indictments against Plaintiff Bianchi, although he Was subsequently acquitted. This Petition has evolved out of that With respect to defendants, Scigalski and Hanretty, the Petition alleges infer alia that:

A. The Quest Investigators conducted a background check on Judge Joseph G. McGraw to reveal sensitive financial and personal information regarding Judge McGraw and his family members, including current and former residences, Vehicle registration information and real property ownership and loan information [Pet., pp. 8-9, par. 5(a), Ex.KK] and

B. Defendants Scigalskí and McQueen manufactured a “leak” concerning an article entitled, “Bianchï’s Judge received payments from ILSAAP,” for the purpose of making a baseless personal attack on Judge McGraw. [Pet p9, par. 5/cf).]

STANDARDS FOR RECUSAL

Supreme Court Rule 63(C)(1)(a), (188 Ill. 2d R. 63(C)(l)(a) provides in relevant part:

“(l) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding[.]” 188 111.2d R. 63 (C)(1)(a).

“Rule 63 requires a judge to rceuse himself When his participation might reasonably give rise to questions regarding his impartiality, including situations involving the appearance of impropriety.” People v. Buck, 361 App.3d 923, 931, 297 lll. Dee. 700, 707, 838 NE2d 187, 194 (2d Dist. 2005).

Generally, a judge Should recuse himself ůom a contempt hearing if he has become “personally embroiled” such that heis “unfit to Sit in judgment on the contempt charge.” Mavberrv v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 465, 9l S. Ct. 499, 505, 27 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1971).

“The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit set forth a test for determining an appearance of partiality, in PeDSico. Inc. V. McMillen. 764 F.2d 458, 460 (7th Cir.1985): Whether an objective, disinterested observer fully informed ofthe relevant facts would entertain a significant doubt that the judge in question was impartial.” Leavell v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 397

Analysis

In the instant case, the allegations of contemptuous conduct on the part of Scigalski and Hanretty have necessarily embroiled the judge personally into the controversy. Itis alleged that, “Quest employees conducted a background cheek on Judge Joseph G. McGraw, to reveal sensitive financial and personal information regarding Judge McGraw and his family members, including current and former residences, Vehicle registration information and real property ownership and loan information.” (Emphasis added) pp. 8-9, par. 5(a), Ex. KIQ.

It is no surprise and not likely to influence a judge, even on a subconscious level, to learn that litigants before that judge “investigated” the judge. One of the fundamental principles of public speaking is to “know your audience.” In that Way litigants can be expected to attempt to learn as much as possible about the judge assigned to hear their case as possible; particularly in tenns of any tendencies of their rulings, expectations of procedure etc.

It is much more unexpected that such an investigation would include family members of the judge and go beyond his “judicial persona” delving into purely private matters. In that situation it is quite reasonable to expect that, at best, the judge will be unappreciative of the invasion and at worst, be down right insulted, offended or incensed and looking for retribution..

The other allegation (concerning the Quest employees) is an accusation that Defendants Scigalski and McQueen manufactured a “leak” concerning an article entitled, “Bianchi’s Judge received payments from ILSAAP,” for the purpose of making a baseless personal attack on Judge McGraw. (Pet. p. 9, par. (D.) This allegation unquestionably raises the significant risk that an objective, disinterested observer fullly informed of the relevant facts would entertain a significant doubt that the judge in question was impartial.

This allegation puts the court between a rock and a hard place. Ruling against the defendants creates the risk that an objective observer could believe that the decision was influenced by a desire to punish those accused of investigating too deeply into the judge’s background or of manufacturing a “baseless personal attack.” On the other hand, ruling in favor of the defendants could cause that sarne observer to wonder if the court bent over backwards to avoid the appearance of the ­former.

­The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized the necessity of the contempt power, to protect the administration of justice and dignity of the courts, as indispensable. Yet, it has also emphasized the delicate nature of its proper exercise in order to avoid arbitrary or oppressive conclusions. In Maybe@ the Court said, “This rule of caution is more mandatory Where the contempt charged has in it an element of personal attack or criticism of the judge. The judge must banish the slightest personal impulse to reprisal, but he should not bend backward, and injure the authority of the court by too great leniency.” Maybe@ v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 464, 91 S. Ct. 499, 504, 27 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1971).

For all of the reasons stated above this Honorable Court should recuse itself from these proceedings and re-assign it to another Judge or refer it to the Illinois Supreme Court for re-assignment.

ROGER B. WEBBER, 6184986
BECKETT & WEBBER, P.C.
508 S. Broadway
Urbana, IL 61803-7160

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS,
EASTERN DIVISION
LOUIS A. BIANCHI, JOYCE A. SYNEK,
RONALD J. SALGADO, and MICHAEL
J. McCLEARY
Plaintiffs,
v. No.: 12-cv-00364
THOMAS K. MCQUEEN, DANIEL
JERGER, ROBERT SCIGALSKI, JAMES
REILLY, PATRICK HANRETTY,
RICHARD STILLING, QUEST
CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL,
LIMITED, an Illinois Corporation, and
UNKNOWN CO-CONSPIRATORS
Defendants.

Judge Robert M. Dow Jr.
Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Plaintiffs, Louis A. Bianchi, Joyce A. Synek, Ronald J. Salgado, and Michael J. McCleary, by and through their attorneys, Ekl, Williams, & Provenzale LLC, complain of the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Patrick Hanretty, Richard Stilling, and Quest Consultants International, Limited, an Illinois corporation as follows:

INTRODUCTION
This action is brought pursuant to the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under Illinois State Law.

Plaintiff Louis A. Bianchi, the State’s Attorney of McHenry County (hereinafter “Bianchi”), and three of his employees were the victims of politically and financially motivated unconstitutional and unlawful criminal investigations and prosecutions orchestrated by Defendant Thomas K. McQueen, in his role as a taxpayer funded “assistant” to special prosecutor Henry C. Tonigan, in concert with his co-Defendant private investigators, acting as special state’s attorney investigators.

The investigations and prosecutions were the product of a conspiracy, initiated by Bianchi’s political enemies, to remove Bianchi from office by fabricating false criminal charges and prosecuting Bianchi and his employees for criminal offenses, despite the lack of probable cause or credible evidence to support such charges.

To accomplish this goal, Defendants manufactured and fabricated false evidence, presented that false evidence to a grand jury, concealed exculpatory evidence, and engaged in gross investigative misconduct.

As a result, Defendants obtained two highly publicized criminal indictments against Bianchi and a criminal indictment against three of his employees, Plaintiffs Joyce Synek, Ronald Salgado, and Michael McCleary, all of which were wholly unsupported by probable cause or credible evidence.

The conspiracy crumbled when Bianchi resisted pressure to resign from office and instead proceeded to trial where he and Plaintiff Synek were acquitted of all charges by a directed finding, and where the charges against Plaintiffs Salgado and McCleary were dismissed by the trial court.

Despite Defendants’ failure to force Bianchi from office, Plaintiffs suffered significant severe and permanent damages based on the constitutional and state law violations that resulted from Plaintiffs’ unlawful arrests, indictments, and prosecutions.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and §1343(a)(3), as the federal claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), as all or some of the parties reside in the Northern District of Illinois and the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

THE PARTIES

2. The Plaintiff, Louis A. Bianchi, is a resident of the Northern District of Illinois. At all times relevant, Bianchi has been the elected State’s Attorney of McHenry County. Bianchi brings this action in his capacity as a private citizen.

3. The Plaintiff, Joyce A. Synek, is a resident of the Northern District of Illinois. At all times relevant she was employed as an Executive Administrative Assistant to Bianchi.

4. The Plaintiffs, Ronald J. Salgado and Michael J. McCleary, are residents of the Northern District of Illinois. At all times relevant, they were employed as investigators for the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office (hereinafter “SAO”).

5. Defendant Thomas K. McQueen is a resident of the Northern District of Illinois. At all relevant times he was an attorney, appointed by the Circuit Court of McHenry County to “assist” special prosecutor Henry C. Tonigan1, and acting under the color of law. This action is brought 6. The Defendant, Quest Consultants International, Limited (hereinafter “Quest”), at
all relevant times was an Illinois corporation doing business in the Northern District of Illinois. At all relevant times, Quest and its employees were retained as taxpayer funded special investigators to the special state’s attorney. As such, Quest and its employees acted under the color of law and with the authority and power to exercise police powers and conduct criminal investigations.

7. The Defendants, Robert Scigalski, Daniel Jerger, James Reilly, Patrick Hanretty, and Richard Stilling, at all relevant times were employees of Quest as taxpayer funded special investigators to the special state’s attorney, and appointed by the Circuit Court of McHenry County as agents and investigators of the special grand jury. As such, these Defendants acted under the color of law, with the authority and power of peace officers, and within the scope of their employment with Quest.

= = = = =

FN1 Henry C. Tonigan is a former defendant in this case and was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiffs after a settlement agreement was reached.
= = = = =
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS OF THE COMPLAINT

BACKGROUND OF THE CONSPIRACY TO REMOVE BIANCHI FROM OFFICE

8. In November of 2004, Plaintiff Bianchi was elected State’s Attorney of McHenry County after having previously defeated Glenn Gable in the March 2004 Republican primary.

9. Upon taking office on December 2, 2004, Bianchi promptly began reforming the SAO by, inter alia:

(a) Eliminating the abuse of plea bargaining with politically connected defense attorneys;

(b) Increasing the amount of hours that all SAO employees were required to work each day;

(c) Refusing to give special deals to political operatives, contributors, and friends of the previous administration; and

(d) Terminating the employment of SAO employees who were unqualified or unwilling to competently perform their assignments.

10. As a result of these reforms, Bianchi frustrated political operatives in McHenry County, who had obtained more favorable accommodations with the previous administration, and other McHenry County department heads.

11. In March of 2007, Bianchi announced his intention to run for re-election in the November 2008 State’s Attorney’s election.

12. Bianchi was opposed in the February 2008 Republican primary by Daniel Regna, a former assistant state’s attorney (ASA) under the previous administration, whom Bianchi had refused to hire.

13. The 2008 Republican primary campaign between Bianchi and Regna was highly contentious, and sharply divided supporters of Bianchi’s reforms from the political operatives who supported Regna in an effort to return the SAO to its prior mode of operation.

14. Bianchi won the February 2008 primary against Regna, prevailed again in the November general election, and in December of 2008, began his second term as State’s Attorney of McHenry County.

15. After failing in their efforts to legally remove Bianchi from office during the 2008 election, Bianchi’s political enemies initiated a politically motivated conspiracy to override the election and force Bianchi from office. The objective of this conspiracy was to violate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights through arresting, indicting, and publicly smearing Bianchi, thereby causing him to resign his office, irreparably tarnish his public reputation, and allow his political opponents to install a State’s Attorney who would do their bidding.

The Manipulation of Amy Dalby and the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor by Bianchi’s Political Enemies

16. From June 2004 until she resigned in July of 2006, Amy Dalby was employed as a secretary in the SAO.

17. Prior to resigning, Dalby stole approximately 5000 documents from a SAO computer, including confidential and sensitive documents concerning pending investigations and prosecutions.

18. Dalby stole the documents from the SAO at the suggestion of Kristen Foley, an ASA whom Bianchi had demoted from her position as Chief of the Civil Division. In the summer of 2007, Foley began actively working on the political campaign of Bianchi’s 2008 primary opponent, Daniel Regna.

19. In October 2007, Dalby gave the stolen documents to Kristen Foley for use in Regna’s campaign. Foley then disclosed the stolen documents to the media.

20. In November of 2007, Bianchi learned of the theft and petitioned a court to appoint a special prosecutor, independent of the SAO, to investigate, and if necessary, prosecute the responsible individual.

21. In March of 2009, Dalby was arrested and charged with six felony offenses. On or about June 1, 2009, Ms. Dalby pled guilty to computer tampering.

22. In the meantime, on February 23, 2009, in the Circuit Court of McHenry County, Daniel Regna filed a politically motivated petition to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Bianchi, alleging that Dalby performed political work while working in the SAO.

23. Likewise, on April 23, 2009, at the direction and/or with the assistance of Bianchi’s political enemies, Dalby herself filed a petition for appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate her allegation that she performed political work while working in the SAO from December of 2004 until July of 2006.

24. The three year statute of limitation on any allegations made in Amy Dalby’s petition expired no later than July 2009, three years after Dalby left the SAO. Nonetheless, on September 4, 2009, McHenry County Circuit Court Judge Gordon Graham granted Dalby’s petition to appoint a special prosecutor.

25. On September 18, 2009, Judge Graham appointed Henry C. Tonigan III (hereinafter “Tonigan”) as a special state’s attorney to investigate and/or prosecute if necessary any and all persons involved in Amy Dalby’s allegations. Judge Graham also appointed Defendant McQueen to “assist” Tonigan. See Order, attached as Exhibit A.

26. Judge Graham’s order limited Tonigan’s authority, and likewise his assistant, Defendant McQueen, to investigating and/or prosecuting Dalby’s allegation that she performed political work at the SAO from December 2004 until July 2006.

27. Tonigan and Defendant McQueen convinced Judge Graham, in an ex parte fashion, and without any input from McHenry County or its attorney, to compensate himself and his assistant, Defendant McQueen, at a rate of $250 an hour. This agreement violated 55 ILCS 5/3-9008, which, in order to avoid abuses of public finances, prohibits special state’s attorneys fromexceeding the compensation of the elected state’s attorney, in a given year.

October 2009-August 2010 Investigation: McQueen and the Quest Investigators Collaborate to Fabricate Evidence

28. In October of 2009, Defendant McQueen and Tonigan interviewed Dalby and learned, by that time, at the very latest, that the statute of limitations barred any prosecution of Bianchi, or anyone else, for the allegations made by Dalby, even if true.

29. However, despite having a legal obligation to do so, Tonigan and Defendant McQueen did not terminate their investigation in October of 2009. Instead, Defendant McQueen and Tonigan began an illegal taxpayer funded investigation into Bianchi and the SAO that far exceeded the scope of their limited appointment.

30. On November 18, 2009, Tonigan sought to expand the scope of his appointment as a special prosecutor by sending Judge Graham an ex parte letter.

31. As a result of Tonigan’s letter, Judge Graham signed an order, granting Tonigan the authority to investigate and/or prosecute Bianchi and “any and all persons” relative to any misappropriation or theft from “2005 and thereafter.” The order made no mention of Defendant McQueen. See Order, attached as Exhibit B.

32. Around December of 2009, Tonigan retained an investigative firm, Defendant Quest, to assist in the investigation of Bianchi. A billing arrangement was determined and agreed to, without any participation by McHenry County, the entity that was ordered to pay Defendant Quest’s bills. It was determined that each of Defendant Quest’s employees would be billed at an exorbitant rate for police investigators of $135 an hour, with the exception of Defendant Jerger, whose timewas to be billed at the unheard of rate of $250 an hour.

33. After being appointed as special investigators, Quest employees, including, but not limited to, Defendants Jerger, Scigalski, Reilly, Hanretty, and Stilling (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Quest Investigators”) participated, with Defendant McQueen, in a wide ranging politically and financially motivated investigation of Bianchi and the SAO.

34. After the Quest Investigators’ appointment, Defendant McQueen began working directly with the Quest Investigators in the investigation of Bianchi and the SAO. McQueen led the investigation by interviewing witnesses personally and directing the Quest Investigators who to interview, what questions to ask, and what information to document and not document.

35. During their investigation, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators made a concerted effort to limit Tonigan’s role in and knowledge of their investigation. Furthermore, after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that during the investigation, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators purposefully presented Tonigan with manufactured inculpatory evidence and concealed material and exculpatory information from Tonigan.

36. Defendant McQueen, along with Defendant Quest Investigators, and other as yet unnamed co-conspirators, met and agreed, through explicit and/or implicit means, to manufacture and fabricate evidence for the purpose of removing Bianchi from office by charging and prosecuting Bianchi and other SAO employees with criminal offenses, despite the lack of  probable cause or credible evidence.

37. In furtherance of that agreement, Defendant McQueen personally interviewed individuals and also directed the Defendant Quest Investigators to conduct certain interviews for the purpose of manufacturing and fabricating evidence.

38. The Defendant Quest Investigators represented themselves to witnesses as McHenry County Special Investigators who had been engaged by Tonigan to conduct an investigation into the official misconduct in the SAO.

39. After conducting interviews, the Defendant Quest Investigators directly informed Defendant McQueen of the information related during the interviews.

40. During the investigation, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators manufactured evidence and fabricated inculpatory witness statements against Bianchi and other SAO employees.

41. In furtherance of their conspiratorial agreement, and at the direction and/or with the knowledge of Defendant McQueen, the Defendant Quest Investigators prepared reports that contained the false and manufactured evidence. To wit:

a) Defendant Scigalski falsely reported that former ASA William Dennison stated that:

i) Bianchi held campaign meetings during working hours that were attended by SAO employees;

ii) Bianchi had an assistant, Jamie Rein, walking around the office selling tickets to his fundraiser; and

iii) Bianchi allowed SAO employees to leave the office early the day of his fundraiser because he wanted attorneys to arrive early.

b) Defendant Scigalski and/or Defendant Reilly falsely reported that former ASA Nichole Owens stated that:

i) Bianchi used SAO employees to attend lunch time “political campaign committee meetings”;

ii) Bianchi’s campaign committee members were responsible for political activities in the SAO; and

iii) Expos (community sponsored public information forums) were used to promote Bianchi and comp time (paid time off) should not have been given to ASAs for attendance.

c) Defendant Reilly falsely reported that former ASA Mary McClellan stated that:

i) Former ASA Michelle Courier ran the Bianchi campaign out of her office.

d) Defendant Scigalski and/or Defendant Stilling falsely reported that ASA Jamie Rein stated that:

i) The entire SAO was asked to attend a Bianchi fundraiser;

ii) She was told her lack of attendance at a fundraiser might affect her career;

iii) Attendance at expos by ASAs was mandatory and the expos were held to provide a political advantage to Bianchi; and

iv) She received comp time for attending a Bianchi’s fundraiser.

42. None of the former and current ASAs ever made the statements attributed to them as described in paragraph 41 (a-d) above.

43. Furthermore, on April 21, 2010, during the investigation, Defendant Scigalski sent Defendant McQueen an email of a witness statement that included exculpatory evidence regarding Bianchi. After Defendant McQueen expressed disappointment with the statement and met with Defendant Scigalski, Defendant Scigalski materially changed the written statement to exclude the exculpatory information and add manufactured inculpatory information regarding Bianchi.

44. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that the false evidence manufactured during the investigation by Defendant McQueen and the Defendant Quest Investigators was done without Special Prosecutor Tonigan’s knowledge.

45. During the course of the investigation, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators were secretly obtaining information from Bianchi’s political enemies in furtherance of the conspiracy to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights through the manufacture and falsification of evidence to arrest, indict, and prosecute Bianchi and other members of the SAO with crimes that they did not commit. Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators concealed their relationship
and communications with these individuals until they were recently revealed through discovery obtained by Plaintiffs on May 23, 2012 in this instant case.

46. On April 9, 2010, Judge Graham convened a special grand jury and also appointed, at taxpayers expense, fifteen (15) Quest investigators as agents of the special grand jury, including Defendants Jerger, Scigalski, Reilly, Hanretty, and Stilling.

47. After the special grand jury was convened, Defendant McQueen continued to lead the politically motivated investigation by interviewing witnesses personally and directing the Defendant Quest Investigators who to interview, what questions to ask, and what information to document.

48. During the grand jury proceedings, Defendant McQueen presented the false evidence, that he and the Defendant Quest Investigators manufactured during the investigation, for the purpose of improperly influencing the special grand jury and Tonigan to indict Bianchi and Synek for crimes that were not supported by probable cause, to wit:

a) Defendant McQueen made unsworn and false statements of fact to the grand jury:

i) that County employees were given “comp time” for attending parades and evening public events which were political in nature;

ii) that Thomas Carroll, a former ASA, was directly told that he was expected to participate in political activities when he was hired as chief of the civil division;

iii) that political pressure was brought to bear on SAO employees during Bianchi’s tenure;

iv) that all of the documents that McQueen presented to the special grand jury, which came from the hard drive of a computer used by Joyce Synek, were political in nature; and

v) that Joan Hoffman, an administrative assistant in the SAO, provided McQueen political documents from her SAO computer.

b) Defendant Scigalski falsely testified before the special grand jury that former ASA Nichole Owens told him that:

i) Bianchi assumed and expected that ASAs would do political activities, including attending fundraisers, leaving work early to go to campaign meetings, and marching in parades, for which they received comp time;

ii) One of Ronald Salgado’s chief jobs, as the chief investigator for the SAO, was to bring people together for political reasons;

iii) Bianchi believed he could give comp time to employees for political work; and

iv) Political campaigning was undertaken at Bianchi’s direction by SAO employees

c) Defendant Scigalski also falsely testified before the special grand jury that SAO employees were given paid time by the County of McHenry for performing political work.

49. Tonigan was attending the grand jury proceedings when the manufactured evidence, identified in paragraph 48 above, was presented. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that Tonigan did not know that the evidence was false and that Tonigan incorrectly believed that Defendants McQueen and
Scigalski were relating truthful information that they learned during their investigation.

50. During the course of the investigation and through the interview of witnesses, Defendants Jerger and McQueen also learned that there was no evidence that any document had been deleted from the computer after the issuance of the subpoena and that certain documents were not recoverable due to a computer virus rather than any wrongdoing by Bianchi or Synek. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that Defendants Jerger and McQueen hid that evidence from Tonigan and instead manufactured evidence to convince Tonigan to charge Bianchi and Synek with conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice.

September 2010: Bianchi and Synek are Indicted and Arrested Without Probable Cause.

51. Tonigan, as the special state’s attorney, had the sole responsibility and authority for determining what charges to bring against Bianchi and Synek. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators used the false evidence and witness statements that they manufactured during the investigation and concealed exculpatory evidence in order to “dupe” Tonigan to bring charges against Bianchi and Synek.

52. As a direct result of and in direct reliance upon the false and manufactured evidence by Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators and their concealment of exculpatory evidence, Tonigan made the decision to bring criminal charges, in the form of an indictment, against Bianchi and Synek; but for the manufacture and falsification of evidence directly and innocently relied upon by Tonigan in seeking to indict, arrest and prosecute the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs would never have
been indicted, arrested or prosecuted by Tonigan.

53. On or about September 10, 2010, based upon the false and manufactured evidence as described above, the special grand jury returned an indictment against Bianchi, presented under Tonigan’s authority, for

• Conspiracy to commit official misconduct and obstruction of justice,
• nineteen (19) counts of Official Misconduct, and
• Unlawful Communication with a Witness (10 CF933).

None of these 21 counts were supported by probable cause or any competent evidence.

54. On September 10, 2010, based upon the false and manufactured evidence as described above, the special grand jury returned an indictment against Synek, presented under Tonigan’s authority, for Conspiracy to commit official misconduct and obstruction of justice, four (4) counts of perjury, and obstruction of justice (10 CF 934). None of these counts were supported by probable cause or any competent evidence.

55. The indictment alleged that Bianchi and Syneck conspired to commit official misconduct and obstruction of justice. No evidence existed that there was any agreement, either explicit or implicit, between Bianchi and Synek to commit either official misconduct or obstruction of justice. During their investigation, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators
manufactured the sole evidence used to support those charges.

56. The indictment alleged that Bianchi and Syneck conspired to commit officialagreement with Bianchi, deleted certain files after receiving a grand jury subpoena to produce those documents. Defendants McQueen and Jerger knew, based upon their investigation, that the charge was false and based solely on manufactured evidence.

57. The indictment falsely alleged that Bianchi, in agreement with Synek, committed official misconduct by causing Synek to prepare and maintain certain documents on her County computer. However, no evidence existed that any of the documents that Synek allegedly prepared were actually typed by Synek, were typed on a County computer, or that they were typed during
County work hours. Likewise, there was no evidence that Bianchi directed Synek to prepare any of the documents on a County computer or during County work hours. All evidence used to support those charges was false and manufactured by Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators during their investigation.

58. As a result of the indictments, a warrant was issued for the arrests of both Bianchi and Synek. On or about September 10, 2010, Bianchi and Synek were both placed under arrest by the McHenry County Sheriff and held in custody at the McHenry County Jail.

59. The indictments and arrests of Bianchi and Synek were widely covered by print, television, and electronic media throughout the Chicagoland area. Bianchi was widely described as the first State’s Attorney in the history of the State of Illinois to be indicted while in office. Based on the indictments and media coverage, Bianchi’s political enemies called on Bianchi to resign from office and questioned his ability to continue to serve as State’s Attorney while under indictment.

60. Despite the concerted efforts by the Defendants and other as yet unnamed coconspirators, Bianchi refused to resign and continued with his duties as State’s Attorney.  Based on the First Indictment Failing to State an Actual Offense Against Bianchi, a Manufactured Witness Statement is Used to Obtain a Superceding Indictment

61. The first indictment failed to allege Bianchi committed an actual underlying crime, which is required to charge official misconduct. Therefore, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators resumed their investigation for the purpose of fabricating evidence that Bianchi committed an underlying crime of “theft of labor, services, and use of property.”

62. To accomplish that result, on October 21, 2010, Defendants McQueen and Stilling interviewed Peter Austin, the McHenry County Administrator. During that interview, Peter Austin informed Defendants McQueen and Stilling that elected county officials, such as Bianchi, had discretion to authorize the use of county property for personal use. Peter Austin also referred
Defendants McQueen and Stilling to the County of McHenry Personnel Policy Manual which granted elected officials such authority. Peter Austin’s statement to Defendants McQueen and Stilling negated any possibility that Bianchi or Synek committed the offenses of conspiracy or official misconduct.

63. After the interview with Peter Austin, Defendants Stilling and McQueen agreed to withhold the exculpatory evidence provided by Peter Austin and instead manufactured a false statement of Peter Austin for the purpose of creating the appearance that there was probable cause to charge Bianchi and Synek with conspiracy and official misconduct.

64. Defendants Stilling and McQueen fabricated a false statement that Peter Austin informed them that only the County Administrator could authorize the use of County property for

65. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that Defendant Tonigan relied upon the false statement manufactured by Defendants McQueen and Stilling in making his decision to present a superceding indictment to the special grand jury, alleging that Bianchi and Synek engaged in official misconduct and conspiracy to commit official misconduct by committing the underlying offense of “theft of labor, services, or
use of property.”

66. On October 22, 2010, the evidence manufactured by Defendants McQueen and Stilling, regarding the authority of Bianchi and SAO employees to use County property, was presented to the special grand jury.

67. As a result of the manufactured evidence, the grand jury returned a superceding indictment, under Tonigan’s authority, against Bianchi and Synek alleging that Bianchi committed the offenses of official misconduct by committing the underlying offense of “Theft of labor, services, and use of property” of McHenry County (720 ILCS 5/16-3). The only evidence to support
the superceding indictment was false and manufactured by Defendants McQueen and Stilling.

October 2010-March 2011: Defendants Withhold Critical Evidence and Plaintiffs Bianchi and Synek are Acquitted After a Motion for Directed Finding

68. After all of the judges in McHenry County recused themselves from Bianchi and Synek’s criminal cases, the Illinois Supreme Court appointed Judge Joseph McGraw, a circuit court judge in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, to preside over the cases.

69. In furtherance of their conspiracy to prosecute and convict Bianchi and Synek for crimes they did not commit, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from Special Prosecutor Tonigan during the prosecutions of Bianchi and Synek.

70. For example, evidence that a computer virus explained why certain documents could not be recovered from a computer, rather than a deliberate act by Bianchi or Synek, eviscerated the conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges against Bianchi and Synek. That evidence was discovered by Defendants McQueen and Jerger during the investigation and concealed during the criminal prosecution.

71. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that Tonigan did not know about the concealed exculpatory evidence and that he would not have continued with the criminal prosecutions of Bianchi and Synek for conspiracy and obstruction of justice had he known of its existence.

72. By fabricating evidence during the investigation through manufactured interview reports and then concealing the exculpatory evidence which established the falsity of the charges, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators forced Bianchi and Synek to remain under indictment for more than six months.

73. Furthermore, the withheld information would have additionally revealed gross investigative misconduct and perjured testimony before the grand jury, thereby exposing due process violations which would have led to the dismissal of Bianchi and Synek’s indictments prior to trial by the trial judge.

74. On March 23, 2011, after a two day bench trial, Judge Joseph McGraw granted Bianchi and Synek’s Motion for a Directed Finding and acquitted them of all charges.

October 2010-February 2011 Investigation: Defendants Collaborate to Fabricate Evidence During a Second Investigation

75. Shortly after obtaining the first indictment against Bianchi and Synek, Defendants McQueen and Scigalski began a second illegal and unauthorized investigation of Bianchi, and two of his employees, Plaintiffs Ronald J. Salgado and Michael J. McCleary. This investigation included interviewing witnesses about Bianchi’s handling of criminal cases, which clearly exceeded their authority under the orders signed by Judge Graham appointing Tonigan as a special prosecutor
on September 18, 2009 and January 7, 2010. See Exhibits A and B.

76. On October 1, 2010, long after Defendants McQueen and Scigalski had already begun their second unauthorized investigation, Defendant McQueen filed a verified petition to expand their investigation which contained knowingly false statements regarding Bianchi’s allegedly improper intervention in three criminal cases, to wit:

a) that Bianchi directed an ASA to reduce a plea offer to Ronald Salgado’s nephew (Jeremy Reid) from five to four years;

b) that Bianchi asked an ASA to secure a recognizance bond for one of his relatives (Michael Morzos), a felony defendant, and instructed the ASA to delay the case sohis relative could benefit from a diversion program which was not yet operational;
and

c) that Bianchi interceded in the case of a defendant (Tom Salvi), who was related to a financial supporter of Bianchi.

77. In the Petition, Defendant McQueen also falsely represented himself as a “Special State’s Attorney.” However, at that point, Tonigan was the only individual legally appointed as a Special State’s Attorney and, pursuant to court order, Defendant McQueen was only appointed to “assist” Tonigan. See Exhibits A and B.

78. Defendant McQueen’s misrepresentations in the petition were intended to convince Judge Graham to grant him authority to investigate Bianchi and Salgado for crimes they did not commit and further the goal of the conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of Bianchi and drive him from office.

79. Based on Defendant McQueen’s perjured petition, on October 1, 2010, Judge Gordon Graham signed an order granting Defendant McQueen and Tonigan authority to investigate and prosecute individuals for using their official position in the SAO to give benefits in criminal prosecutions to friends, relatives, and supporters.

80. After the October 1, 2010 order, Defendant McQueen continued to directly lead the second investigation by interviewing witnesses personally and directing the Quest investigators who to interview, what questions to ask, and what information to conceal.

81. In regards to the second investigation, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators, agreed through explicit and/or implicit means, to fabricate evidence for the purpose of charging and prosecuting Bianchi and Salgado with criminal offenses, despite the lack of probable cause or competent evidence to support such charges.

82. Prior to all witness interviews, Defendants Scigalski and Hanretty identified themselves as McHenry County Special Investigators who had been engaged by Special State’s Attorney Henry Tonigan to conduct an investigation into official misconduct in the SAO.

83. Several witnesses interviewed by Defendants McQueen, Scigalski, and Hanretty provided information that negated the credibility of any accusations against Bianchi and Salgado.  Defendants McQueen, Scigalski, and Hanretty deliberately ignored and failed to document that exculpatory information.

84. During the course of their investigation, Defendants McQueen, Hanretty and Scigalski manufactured and fabricated false inculpatory evidence against Bianchi and Salgado in their reports while failing to properly document exculpatory evidence, to wit:

(a) Defendant Scigalski falsely reported that ASA Demetri Tsilimigras stated that he was directed by Bianchi to present the victim in the Thomas Salvi case with various alternatives to prosecution, one of which was for the victim to accept an apology and an agreement that Thomas Salvi would undergo counseling;

(b) Defendant Scigalski deliberately failed to record ASA Tsilimigras’ actual statement that he was the one who advised Bianchi of the options that could be given to the victim and Bianchi told him that if the victim wanted to proceed to trial, that was to be the end of the discussion;

(c) Defendant Scigalski falsely reported that former ASA Kirk Chrzanowski told him that Bianchi told him that the sentence for Jeremy Reid was to be four years, rather than five years, and that following Reid’s sentencing, the Reid family was greeted
at the rear of the courtroom with Bianchi celebrating the sentence;

(d) Defendant Scigalski deliberately failed to report Chrzanowski’s actual statement that Bianchi did not direct him to reduce Jeremy Reid’s sentence to four years and that Bianchi did not have any face to face contact with Reid’s family;

(e) At the instruction of Defendants McQueen and Scigalski, Defendant Hanretty intentionally concealed the statement of Sue Ann Serdar, the president of the Pro-Life Victory PAC, that contributions to Bianchi’s campaign were not in exchange for, or in anyway related to, Bianchi dismissing any charges against Thomas Salvi;

(f) At the instruction of Defendant McQueen, Defendant Scigalski deliberately failed to prepare an investigative report to document the statement of Philip Weyna, the chairman of the Pro-Life Victory PAC, denying that any contribution was given to Bianchi in exchange for dismissing a case; and

(g) After Defendants McQueen and Scigalski interviewed Philip Hiscock, the former Chief of the SAO’s Criminal Division and ASA Kirk Chrzanowksi’s supervisor during the pendency of the Jeremy Reid case, the Defendants deliberately failed to
prepare an investigative report to document Hiscock’s statement that it was he (Hiscock) and not Bianchi who made the decision to offer Jeremy Reid a four year sentence on a plea negotiation.

85. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators purposefully concealed material and exculpatory information from Tonigan during the investigation. Furthermore, there likely will be evidentiary support that Tonigan was unaware of the exculpatory evidence and that the inculpatory evidence, as detailed in Paragraph 84, had been had been manufactured and
fabricated by Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators.

86. During the course of their second investigation, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators continued to secretly obtain information from Bianchi’s political enemies, in furtherance of the conspiracy to violate the Plaintiffs’ rights by the manufacture and falsification of evidence to arrest, indict, and prosecute Bianchi and other members of the SAO with crimes that they did not commit. Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators also revealed confidential information to Bianchi’s political enemies during the course of their investigation. Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators concealed their relationship with these individuals until they were recently revealed through discovery on May 23, 2012 in the instant case.

87. Defendant McQueen once again used the grand jury to present the false evidence that he and the Defendant Quest Investigators manufactured during the investigation, for the purpose of improperly influencing the special grand jury and Tonigan to indict Bianchi and Salgado for crimes that were not supported by probable cause, to wit:

(a) Defendant McQueen made unsworn and false statements to the special grand jury that Bianchi offered benefits to a few defendants that were not offered to everyone, in contravention of the way the system was supposed to work;

(b) Defendants Scigalski and McQueen deliberating misled the special grand jury to believe that Bianchi dismissed the Salvi case in return for a campaign contribution from the Pro-Life Victory PAC which directly contradicted the actual evidence
obtained by Defendants McQueen, Scigalski and Hanretty during their investigation;

(c) Defendants McQueen and Scigalski knowingly presented manufactured evidence to the special grand jury that Bianchi directed an ASA to reduce the sentence of Salgado’s “nephew,” Jeremy Reid, from five years to four years;

(d) Defendant McQueen concealed from the grand jury the exculpatory evidence that he learned during the investigation that it was Philip Hiscock, the former Chief of the SAO’s Criminal Division, and not Bianchi, who made the decision to offer Jeremy Reid a four year sentence on a plea negotiation.

(e) Defendant McQueen concealed from the grand jury the exculpatory evidence that he learned during the investigation that Jeremy Reid was not Ronald Salgado’s nephew or otherwise related to Salgado;

(f) Defendant McQueen concealed from the grand jury the exculpatory evidence that he learned during that Michael Morzos was not related to Bianchi; and

(g) Defendant McQueen concealed from the grand jury the exculpatory evidence that Bianchi was not involved in any decisions related to the disposition of Morzos’ case.

February 2011: Bianchi and Salgado are Indicted and Arrested Without Probable Cause

88. Tonigan, as the special state’s attorney, had the sole responsibility and authority for determining what charges to bring against Bianchi and Salgado. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators used the false evidence and witness statements that they manufactured during the investigation and concealed the exculpatory evidence that they learned in order to
convince Tonigan to bring charges against Bianchi and Salgado.

89. As a direct result of and in direct reliance upon the false and manufactured evidence by Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators and their concealment of exculpatory evidence, Tonigan made the decision to bring criminal charges, in the form of an indictment, against Bianchi and Salgado; but for the manufacture and falsification of evidence directly and innocently relied upon by Tonigan in seeking to indict, arrest and prosecute the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs would never have
been indicted, arrested or prosecuted by Tonigan.

90. On February 24, 2011, based upon the false and manufactured evidence, as described above, the special grand jury returned an indictment against Bianchi, presented under Tonigan’s authority, for three counts of official misconduct (11 CF 169) based on Bianchi’s alleged intervention in the three criminal cases described above. None of these counts were supported by probable cause or any competent evidence. This charge was not supported by probable cause or any competent
evidence and all evidence used to support these charges were false and manufactured by Defendants
McQueen and the Quest Investigators during their investigation.

91. On February 24, 2011, based upon the false and manufactured evidence as described above, the special grand jury returned an indictment against Salgado, presented under Tonigan’s authority, for official misconduct based on the allegation that Salgado told an ASA that his nephew, Jeremy Reid, should be given a four, instead of five, year sentence. This charge was not supported by probable cause or any competent evidence and all evidence used to support these charges were false and manufactured by Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators during their investigation.

92. As a result of the indictments, a warrant was issued for the arrest of both Bianchi and Salgado. On or about February 28, 2011, Bianchi and Salgado were both placed under arrest by the McHenry County Sheriff and held in custody at the McHenry County Jail.

93. Salgado’s bond was set at $50,000, requiring Salgado to post $5000 prior to being released from the McHenry County Jail.

October 2010- February 2011: The Investigation, Indictment and Arrest of McCleary Without Probable Cause.

94. As an investigator for the SAO, McCleary was required to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and his duties included locating and serving witnesses with subpoenas. As such, McCleary was assigned a McHenry County vehicle.

95. Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators began an investigation into McCleary’s personal use of the County vehicle.

96. During the investigation Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators learned that based on his position and duties, McCleary was authorized to use his County vehicle for personal use.  However, Defendant McQueen concealed that exculpatory evidence and instead, presented misleading evidence to the special grand jury, to create the false impression that McCleary was not authorized to use a County vehicle for personal use.

97. On February 24, 2011, Defendant McQueen improperly made a false and unsworn statement to the special grand jury that McCleary had asserted his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer whether he reimbursed the County for gas mileage or expenses. At the time, Defendant McQueen was fully aware that McCleary was never asked a single question relating to
reimbursement to the County for gas mileage or expenses.

98. Defendant McQueen further made a false and unsworn statement to the special grand jurors that he had issued a subpoena for any documents which would show that McCleary did reimburse the County for gas mileage or expenses and that no such documents were produced. In fact, Defendant McQueen knew that a no subpoena was ever issued which called for any such documents.

99. Tonigan, as the special state’s attorney, had the sole responsibility and authority for determining what charges to bring against McCleary. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that as a direct result of and in direct reliance upon the false and manufactured evidence by Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators and their concealment of exculpatory evidence, Tonigan made the decision to bring criminal charges, in the form of an indictment, against McCleary.

100. On February 24, 2011, based upon the false and manufactured evidence as described above, the special grand jury returned an indictment against McCleary for official misconduct based on the allegation that McCleary committed a theft of the County vehicle assigned to him. This charge was not supported by probable cause or any competent evidence.

101. As a result of the indictment, a warrant was issued for the arrest of McCleary. On or about February 28, 2011, McCleary was placed under arrest by the McHenry County Sheriff and held in custody at the McHenry County Jail.

McQueen’s Defamatory Statements Further Tarnish the Reputation of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary

102. On February 28, 2011, Defendant McQueen and Tonigan held a press conference. At that time, McQueen, repeated the inflammatory allegations contained in the indictments against Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary, which, as described above, he knew to be false and not supported by probable cause or any competent evidence. During the press conference, Defendant McQueen also made additional false and inflammatory statements regarding Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary, to wit:

(a) Defendant McQueen falsely stated that after the return of the first indictment Scigalski received calls from a number of lawyers regarding cases handled by Bianchi and that those cases suggested that the equal protection rights of all defendants were not being upheld because of favoritism;

(b) Defendant McQueen falsely stated that in a case where the defendant was Salgado’s nephew, Salgado called the ASA handling the case and told the ASA that the negotiated plea of five years would be reduced to four years;

(c) Defendant McQueen falsely stated that after being called into Bianchi’s office, the ASA was told that the sentence for Salgado’s nephew would not be a five year period of incarceration but rather it would be four years; and

(e) Defendant McQueen falsely stated that Bianchi instructed an ASA to give his nephew a recognizance bond on a criminal matter.

103. Defendant McQueen’s statements at the press conference were defamatory, violated the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and were made in furtherance of the conspiracy to convict Bianchi, Salgado and McCleary, force Bianchi to resign from office, and tarnish the public’s opinion of Bianchi.

June-August 2011:Salgado and McCleary’s Cases Are Dismissed by the Court and Bianchi is Acquitted After a Motion for Directed Finding

104. In furtherance of the conspiracy to prosecute and convict Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary for crimes they did not commit, Defendants McQueen, Scigalski, and Hanretty deliberately and without lawful justification withheld exculpatory evidence, including notes of critical witness interviews and witness statements, during the prosecutions of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary.

105. In an effort to conceal the exculpatory evidence that he learned during his investigation, Defendant McQueen made intentional material misrepresentations to Judge McGraw regarding the existence of certain witness statements and his knowledge of exculpatory evidence.

106. Furthermore, in furtherance of their conspiracy with Defendant McQueen to the conceal exculpatory evidence that they learned during their investigation, Defendants Scigalski and Hanretty gave perjured testimony, during a Motion for Sanctions on June 24, 20011, regarding who they interviewed and what exculpatory evidence they learned during their investigation.

107. For example, during the course of their investigation, Defendants McQueen, Hanretty, and Scigalski learned, through an interview of Sue Ann Serdar, that Pro-Life Victory did not contribute to Bianchi in exchange for Bianchi dismissing the case against Thomas Salvi. Despite that, Defendants McQueen and Hanretty concealed that highly exculpatory evidence.

108. Furthermore, on June 24, 2011, Defendant Scigalski deliberately gave perjured testimony at an evidentiary hearing on a Motion for Sanctions regarding who he spoke to during the investigation and what those individuals told him. This was done in an effort to conceal the identify of the other participants, including Bianchi’s political enemies, in the conspiracy to charge and prosecute Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary for crimes they did not commit.

109. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidence, and that he would not have continued with the criminal prosecutions of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary had he known of its existence.

110. By fabricating evidence during the investigation and then concealing their wrongdoing after indictment, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators forced Bianchi to remain under indictment for more than five months.

111. Furthermore, the withheld information revealed gross investigative misconduct and perjured testimony before the special grand jury, which if timely disclosed, would have led to the dismissal of Bianchi’s indictment well in advance of trial by the trial judge.

112. On June 3, 2011, Judge McGraw dismissed the charge of official misconduct against Ronald Salgado based on the failure of the charge to state an offense against Salgado.

113. On June 29, 2011, Judge McGraw dismissed the charge of official misconduct against Michael McCleary based on the failure of the charge to state an offense against McCleary.

114. On August 1 , 2011, immediately prior to the commencement of trial and without any prior notification to Bianchi, Defendant McQueen dismissed the charge against Bianchi which related to the prosecution of Michael Morzos. On August 2, 2011, after a bench trial, Judge McGraw granted Bianchi’s Motion for Directed Finding and acquitted Bianchi of the two remaining charges.

The Conspiracy Between McQueen, the Quest Investigators, and Other Unnamed Individuals Was Driven By Political and Financial Motivations

115. The improper investigation and prosecution of Bianchi and his employees was initiated by Bianchi’s political enemies, including Daniel Regna, who lost the primary election to Bianchi in 2008.

116. Defendant McQueen’s improper investigation of Bianchi, Synek, Salgado, and McCleary took place over a period of 23 months despite the fact that there was never any evidence indicating that Bianchi, Synek, Salagdo, or McCleary committed any crime. Defendant McQueen continued the case for this extended period in order to recoup the benefits of a fraudulent billing scheme, which enabled him to bill McHenry County taxpayers outrageous sums of money with no oversight or accountability.

117. Once the Defendant Quest investigators were appointed as special investigators, they too engaged in fraudulent and excessive billing by overstating the amount of time that was spent on work, performing work that was unnecessary, and persisting in an investigation that was baseless in order to allow the scheme to continue unabated.

118. Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators deliberately concealed the results of their investigation which revealed no criminal wrongdoing and instead manufactured evidence so that they could continue to bill McHenry County taxpayers exorbitant sums for unnecessary services.

COUNT I

42 U.S.C. §1983
FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION–FALSE ARREST (CONSPIRACY)
BIANCHI AND SYNEK’S FIRST ARREST

119. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce Synek reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 119 of this Count I.

120. At all relevant times, Bianchi and Synek possessed a right under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

121. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators as well as other as yet unnamed co-conspirators, accomplished an unlawful result through individual and concerted action, in that they agreed, through explicit or implicit means, to effect the unlawful detention and arrest of Bianchi and Synek, without lawful authority.

122. In furtherance of said agreement, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators unlawfully detained, arrested, and falsely charged Bianchi and Synek with crimes without probable cause and without competent evidence.

123. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators were acting under color of law, and their individual and concerted conduct as described herein was done with deliberate indifference to the rights of Bianchi and Synek.

124. Defendants’ individual acts and conspiracy as described above violated Bianchi and Synek’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as provided for in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and have caused Bianchi and Synek to suffer and will in the future continue to suffer, severe damages including loss of reputation, mental anguish, emotional distress, and legal expenses, as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce A. Synek demand judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00 and for their attorneys’ fees costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT II

42 U.S.C. §1983
FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION–FALSE ARREST (CONSPIRACY)
SECOND ARREST OF BIANCHI AND SALGADO’S ARREST

125. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Ronald J. Salgado reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 125 of this Count II.

126. At all relevant times, Bianchi and Salgado possessed a right under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

127. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators, as well as other as yet unnamed co-conspirators, accomplished an unlawful result through individual and concerted action, in that they agreed, through explicit or implicit means, to effect the unlawful detention and arrest of Bianchi and Salgado, without lawful authority.

128. In furtherance of said agreement, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators unlawfully detained, arrested, and falsely charged Bianchi and Salgado with additional crimes without probable cause and without competent evidence.

129. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators were acting under color of law, and their individual and concerted conduct as described herein was done with deliberate indifference to the rights of Bianchi and Salgado.

130. Defendants’ individual acts and conspiracy as described above violated Bianchi and Salgado’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as provided for in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and have caused Bianchi and Salgado to suffer and will in the future continue to suffer, severe damages including loss of reputation, mental anguish, emotional distress, and legal expenses, as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Louis A. Bianchi and Ronald J. Salgado demand judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00 and for his attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT III

42 U.S.C. §1983
FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION–FALSE ARREST (CONSPIRACY)
MCCLEARY’S ARREST

131. Plaintiff Michael J. McCleary realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 131 of this Count III.

132. At all relevant times, McCleary possessed a right under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

133. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators, as well as other as yet unnamed co-conspirators, accomplished an unlawful result through individual and concerted action, in that they agreed, through explicit or implicit means, to effect the unlawful detention and arrest of McCleary without lawful authority.

134. In furtherance of said agreement, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators unlawfully detained, arrested, and falsely charged McCleary with crimes without probable cause and without competent evidence.

135. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators were acting under color of law, and their individual and concerted conduct as described herein was done with deliberate indifference to the rights of McCleary.

136. Defendants’ individual acts and/or conspiracy as described above violated McCleary’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as provided for in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and have caused McCleary to suffer and will in the future continue to suffer, severe damages including loss of reputation, mental anguish, emotional distress, and legal expenses, as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Michael J. McCleary demands judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00 and for his attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT IV

42 U.S.C. § 1983
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT–DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS (CONSPIRACY) FIRST PROSECUTION OF BIANCHI AND SYNEK

137. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce Synek reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 137 of this Count IV.

138. At all times relevant hereunder, Bianchi and Synek enjoyed the right to a fair trial as enumerated in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be prosecuted upon manufactured and fabricated evidence, and to notice and disclosure of evidence that tends to negate the guilt of Plaintiffs.

139. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators as well as yet unnamed co-conspirators, individually, jointly and in conspiracy with each other caused the wrongful charging and continued prosecution of Bianchi and Synek and attempted to secure the wrongful conviction of Bianchi and Synek by fabricating witness statements, manufacturing evidence, suppressing exculpatory evidence and continuing to conceal their wrongdoing from Bianchi and
Synek and their attorneys during the criminal proceedings.

140. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators were acting under color of law, and their individual and concerted conduct as described herein was done with deliberate indifference to the rights of Bianchi and Synek.

141. Defendants’ individual acts and conspiracy as described above violated Bianchi and Synek’s right to due process and a fair trial as provided for in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and have caused Bianchi and Synek to suffer and will in the future continue to suffer, severe damages including loss of reputation, mental anguish, emotional distress, and legal expenses, as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce A. Synek demand judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty, and Quest Consultants International, Limited jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00 and for his attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

 COUNT V

42 U.S.C. § 1983
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT–DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS (CONSPIRACY) SECOND PROSECUTION OF BIANCHI , SALGADO AND MCCLEARY

142. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi. Ronald J. Salgado, and Michael J. McCleary reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 142 of this Count V.

143. At all times relevant hereunder, Bianchi, Salgado and McCleary enjoyed the right to a fair trial as enumerated in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be prosecuted upon manufactured and fabricated evidence, and to notice and disclosure of evidence that tends to negate the guilt of Plaintiffs.

144. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators as well as yet unnamed co-conspirators, individually, jointly and in conspiracy with each other caused the wrongful charging and continued prosecution of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary and attempted to secure the wrongful conviction of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary by fabricating witness statements, manufacturing evidence, suppressing exculpatory evidence, and continuing to conceal their
wrongdoing from Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary during the criminal proceedings.

145. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators were acting under color of law, and their individual and concerted conduct as described hereinabove was done with deliberate indifference to the rights of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary.

146. Defendants’ individual acts and conspiracy as described above violated Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary’s rights to due process and a fair trial as provided for in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and have caused Bianchi, Salgago, and McCleary to suffer and will in the future continue to suffer, severe damages including loss of
reputation, mental anguish, emotional distress, and legal expenses, as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Louis A. Bianchi, Ronald J. Salgado, and Michael J. McCleary demand judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty, and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00 and for their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT VI

42 U.S.C. § 1983

FIRST AMENDMENT–RETALIATORY PROSECUTION (CONSPIRACY) FIRST PROSECUTION OF BIANCHI AND SYNEK

147. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce A. Synek reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 147 of this Count VI.

148. At all time relevant hereunder, Bianchi enjoyed the right to seek and participate in the political process and to seek and hold political office under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

149. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators, and as yet unnamed co-conspirators, individually, jointly and in conspiracy with each other caused the wrongful charging and continued prosecution of Bianchi and Synek for crimes that were not supported by probable cause in retaliation against Bianchi for his decision to seek and hold public office, and in order to force Bianchi to resign and/or be forced from his elected position as McHenry County State’s Attorney, and to render Bianchi unelectable in the future and prevent Bianchi from holding public office in the future.

150. Defendants’ individual acts and conspiracy to unlawfully detain, arrest, and falsely charge Bianchi and Synek by manufacturing and fabricating evidence against them and withholding exculpatory evidence from them was intended to retaliate against Bianchi for engaging in protected activity and to prevent Bianchi from engaging in future protected activity.

151. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators were acting under color of law, and their individual and concerted conduct as described herein was done with deliberate indifference to the rights of Bianchi and Synek.

152. Defendants’ individual acts and conspiracy as described above violated Bianchi and Synek’s right to be free from prosecution in retaliation for Bianchi’s decision to seek and hold political office as provided in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and have caused Bianchi and Synek to suffer and will in the future continue to suffer, severe damages including loss of reputation, mental anguish, emotional distress, and legal expenses, as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce A. Synek, demand judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty, and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00 and for his attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT VII

42 U.S.C. § 1983
FIRST AMENDMENT–RETALIATORY PROSECUTION (CONSPIRACY)
SECOND PROSECUTION OF BIANCHI, SALGADO, AND MCCLEARY

153. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi, Ronald J. Salgado, and Michael J. McCleary reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 153 of this Count VII.

154. At all time relevant hereunder, Bianchi enjoyed the right to seek and participate in the political process and to seek and hold political office under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

155. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen, the Quest Investigators, and as yet unnamed co-conspirators, individually, jointly and in conspiracy with each other caused the wrongful charging and continued prosecution of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary for crimes that were not supported by probable cause in retaliation against Bianchi for his decision to seek and hold public office, and in order to force Bianchi to resign and/or be forced from his elected position as McHenry County State’s Attorney, and to render Bianchi unelectable in the future and prevent Bianchi from holding public office in the future.

156. Defendants’ individual acts and conspiracy to unlawfully detain, arrest, and falsely charge Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary by manufacturing and fabricating evidence against them and withholding exculpatory evidence from them was intended to retaliate against Bianchi for engaging in protected activity and to prevent Bianchi from engaging in future protected activity.

157. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators were acting under color of law, and their individual and concerted conduct as described herein was done with deliberate indifference to the rights of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary.

158. Defendants’ individual acts and conspiracy as described above violated Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary’s right to be free from prosecution in retaliation for Bianchi’s decision to seek and hold political office as provided in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and have caused Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary to suffer and will in the future continue to suffer, severe damages including loss of reputation, mental anguish, emotional distress, and legal expenses, as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Louis A. Bianchi, Ronald J. Salgado, and Michael J. McCleary, demand judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty, and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00 and for his attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT VIII

STATE LAW CLAIM–MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY, FIRST PROSECUTION OF BIANCHI AND SYNEK

159. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce A. Synek reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 159 of this Count VIII.

160. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators, lacked probable cause to detain, arrest and/or charge Bianchi and Synek for a violation of any law, statute or ordinance of any jurisdiction.

161. At all relevant times, the Defendants were acting under color of law.

162. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators as well as other as yet unnamed co-conspirators, accomplished an unlawful result through individual and concerted action, in that they agreed, through explicit or implicit means, to falsely and maliciously charge Bianchi and Synek with violations of criminal provisions of the Illinois Criminal Code without probable cause to do so.

163. As set forth above, and in furtherance of said agreement, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators manufactured and fabricated evidence, falsified police reports, filed false criminal charges initiating judicial proceedings, withheld, concealed and/or destroyed exculpatory evidence, and lied under oath.

164. As set forth above, the criminal charges initiated by Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators were filed with malice and disposed of in favor of Bianchi and Synek in a manner indicative of the actual innocence of Bianchi and Synek.
165. As the proximate cause of the false and malicious prosecution as set forth above, Bianchi and Synek have suffered and will continue in the future to suffer injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce A. Synek, demand judgment against the Defendants Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty, and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00.

COUNT IX

STATE LAW CLAIM–MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY, SECOND PROSECUTION OF BIANCHI AND SALGADO

166. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Ronald J. Salgado reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 166 of this Count IX.

167. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators, lacked probable cause to detain, arrest and/or charge Bianchi and Salgado for a violation of any law, statute or ordinance of any jurisdiction.

168. At all relevant times, the Defendants were acting under color of law.

169. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators, as well as other as yet unnamed co-conspirators, accomplished an unlawful result through individual and concerted action, in that they agreed, through explicit or implicit means, to falsely and maliciously charge Bianchi and Salgado with additional violations of criminal provisions of the Illinois Criminal Code without probable cause to do so.

170. As set forth above, and in furtherance of said agreement, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators manufactured and fabricated evidence, falsified police reports, filed false additional criminal charges initiating judicial proceedings, withheld, concealed and/or destroyed exculpatory evidence, and lied under oath.

171. As set forth above, the additional criminal charges initiated by Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators were filed with malice and disposed of in favor of Bianchi and Salgado in a manner indicative of the actual innocence of Bianchi and Salgado.

172. As the proximate cause of the false and malicious prosecution as set forth above, Bianchi and Salgado has suffered and will continue in the future to suffer injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Louis A. Bianchi and Ronald J. Salgado, demand judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty, and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00.

COUNT X

STATE LAW CLAIM–MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY, MCCLEARY’S PROSECUTION

173. Plaintiff Michael McCleary realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 173 of this Count X.

174. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators lacked probable cause to detain, arrest and/or charge McCleary for a violation of any law, statute or ordinance of any jurisdiction.

175. At all relevant times, the Defendants were acting under color of law.

176. At all relevant times, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators, as well as other as yet unnamed co-conspirators, accomplished an unlawful result through individual and concerted action, in that they agreed, through explicit or implicit means, to falsely and maliciously charge McCleary with violations of criminal provisions of the Illinois Criminal Code without
probable cause to do so.

177. As set forth above, and in furtherance of said agreement, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators manufactured and fabricated evidence, falsified police reports, filed false criminal charges initiating judicial proceedings, withheld, concealed and/or destroyed exculpatory evidence, and lied under oath.

178. As set forth above, the criminal charges initiated by Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators, were filed with malice and disposed of in favor of McCleary in a manner indicative of the actual innocence of McCleary

179. As the proximate cause of the false and malicious prosecution as set forth above, McCleary has suffered and will continue in the future to suffer injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Michael J. McCleary, demands judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty, and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00.

COUNT XI

STATE LAW CLAIM, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND CONSPIRACY (LOUIS BIANCHI)

180. Plaintiff Louis A. Bianchi realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 180 of this Count XI.

181. Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators accomplished an unlawful result through individual and/or concerted action in that they agreed, through explicit or implicit means, to falsely and maliciously arrest and prosecute Bianchi without lawful justification.

182. In furtherance of said agreement, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators fabricated, manufactured, and withheld evidence, falsely and maliciously detained, arrested and charged Bianchi with violations of the Illinois Criminal Code, and made false statements concealing their individual and concerted conduct.

183. The above described conduct was extreme and outrageous and committed with the intent to cause, or with awareness of the high probability that it would cause, Bianchi extreme emotional distress.

184. As a proximate result of the above described conduct of the Defendants, Bianchi has suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, extreme damages, including extreme emotional distress and pecuniary injuries.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Louis A. Bianchi, demands judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Patrick Hanretty, Richard Stilling, and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00.

COUNT XII

STATE LAW CLAIM
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND CONSPIRACY (JOYCE SYNEK)

185. Plaintiff Joyce A. Synek realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 185 of this Count XII.

186. Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators accomplished an unlawful result through individual and/or concerted action in that they agreed, through explicit or implicit means, to falsely and maliciously arrest and prosecute Synek without lawful justification.

187. In furtherance of said agreement, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators fabricated, manufactured, and withheld evidence, falsely and maliciously detained, arrested and charged Synek with violations of the Illinois Criminal Code and made false statements concealing their individual and concerted conduct.

188. The above described conduct was extreme and outrageous and committed with the intent to cause, or with awareness of the high probability that it would cause Synek extreme emotional distress.

189. As a proximate result of the above described conduct of the Defendants, Synek has suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, extreme damages, including extreme emotional distress and pecuniary injuries.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Joyce A. Synek, demands judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Patrick Hanretty, Richard Stilling, and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00.

COUNT XIII

STATE LAW CLAIM
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND CONSPIRACY (RONALD SALGADO)

190. Plaintiff Ronald J. Salgado realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 190 of this Count XIII.

191. Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators accomplished an unlawful result through individual and/or concerted action in that they agreed, through explicit or implicit means, to falsely and maliciously arrest and prosecute Salgado without lawful justification.

192. In furtherance of said agreement, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators fabricated, manufactured, and withheld evidence, falsely and maliciously detained, arrested and charged Salgado with violations of the Illinois Criminal Code and made false statements concealing their individual and concerted conduct.

193. The above described conduct was extreme and outrageous and committed with the intent to cause, or with awareness of the high probability that it would cause Salgado extreme emotional distress.

194. As a proximate result of the above described conduct of the Defendants, Salgado has suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, extreme damages, including extreme emotional distress and pecuniary injuries.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Ronald J. Salgado demands judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00.

COUNT XIV

STATE LAW CLAIM, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND CONSPIRACY
(MICHAEL MCCLEARY)

195. Plaintiff Michael McCleary realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 195 of this Count XIV.

196. Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators, accomplished an unlawful result through individual and/or concerted action in that they agreed, through explicit or implicit means, to falsely and maliciously arrest and prosecute McCleary without lawful justification.

197. In furtherance of said agreement, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators fabricated, manufactured, and withheld evidence, falsely and maliciously detained, arrested and charged McCleary with violations of the Illinois Criminal Code and made false statements concealing their individual and concerted conduct.

198. The above described conduct was extreme and outrageous and committed with the intent to cause, or with awareness of the high probability that it would cause McCleary extreme emotional distress.

199. As a proximate result of the above described conduct of the Defendants, McCleary has suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, extreme damages, including extreme emotional distress and pecuniary injuries.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Michael J. McCleary demands judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00.

COUNT XV

STATE LAW CLAIM
DEFAMATION AND CONSPIRACY (LOUIS BIANCHI, RONALD SALGADO, AND MICHAEL MCCLEARY)

200. Plaintiffs Louis Bianchi, Ronald Salgado, and Michael McCleary reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 200 of this Count XV.
201. As set forth more fully above in paragraph 102, Defendant McQueen made false statements against Plaintiffs.

202. Defendant McQueen caused these statements to be widely published in the media.

203. Defendan McQueen made the aforesaid statements with malice, knowing they were false.

204. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant McQueen, in making and publishing false statements about Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue in the future to suffer injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Louis A. Bianchi, Ronald J. Salgado, and Michael J. McCleary demand judgment against the Defendant Thomas K. McQueen for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00.

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY OF TWELVE

Respectfully submitted by

s/ Terry A. Ekl
Ekl, Williams & Provenzale, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Terry A. Ekl
Patrick L. Provenzale
Tracy L. Stanker
Ekl, Williams & Provenzale, LLC
901 Warrenville Road, Suite 175
Lisle, IL 60532
(630) 654-0045
Attorneys for Plaintiff

This morning in Rockford’s Winnebago County Courthouse, lawyers showed up for both Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen and the Quest investigators.

They were there to fend off contempt of court charges bought by McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi.

Judge Joseph McGraw was under the impression that the contempt was “direct,” that is, it had occurred in his courtroom, but Terry Ekl, Bianchi’s attorney, explained that “some occurred outside of the courtroom, so we have labeled it ‘indirect contempt.’”

Ekl did point out that “false testimony would have been directly in front of you.”

Roger Weber, a lawyer whom I heard was representing Quest employees Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty, asked for a substitution of judges.

McQueen’s attorney Matt Henderson also asked that another jurist be substituted for Judge Joesph McGraw.

McGraw tried the two criminal trials prosecuted and lost by McQueen and Henry Tonigan without even hearing a defense by Ekl having been offered.

Judge McGraw took the two motions under advisement, although he said the following about Weber’s motion, which was based on a rule numbered 114.5:

“I do not believe that this applies to criminal contempt.

“I’ve encountered this in another context.”

Bianchi attorney Ekl said that he did not acknowledge that they are entitled to the statutory procedural rights under the criminal code, but they are entitled to due process rights.

After setting up the briefing schedule, Judge McGraw asked, “Who’s to prosecute it?”

He wondered whether it would be “the State’s Attorney or a private party.”

“With your Honor’s permission, I’ll be happy to prosecute it,” Ekl replied.

Both Joyce Synek and Mike McCleary, both indicted but not convicted by McQueen and Tonigan, were in the courtroom.

The full report on McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, including a complete timeline, can be found here.

Based on the timeline, the following fifteen counts were filed:

Suit Counts

1. Fourth Amendment Violation–False Arrest (Conspiracy), Bianchi and Synek’s first arrest
2. Fourth Amendment Violation–False Arrest (Conspiracy), Second Arrest of Bianchi and Salgado’s arrest
3. Fourth Amendment Violation–False Arrest (Conspiracy), McCleary’s Arrest
4. Fourteenth Amendment–Due Process Violations (Conspiracy), First Prosecution of Bianchi and Synek
5. Fourteenth Amendment–Due Process Violations (Conspiracy), Second Prosecution of Bianchi
6. First Amendment–Retaliatory Prosecution (Conspiracy), First Prosecution of Bianchi and Synek
7. First Amendment–Retaliatory Prosecution (Conspiracy), Second Prosecution of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary
8. State Law Claim–Malicious Prosecution and Conspiracy, First Prosecution of Bianchi and Synek
9. State Law Claim–Malicious Prosecution and Conspiracy, Second Prosecution of Bianchi and Salgado
10. State Law Claim–Malicious Prosecution and Conspiracy, McCleary’s Prosecution
11. State Law Claim, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Conspiracy (Louis Bianchi)
12. State Law Claim, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Conspiracy (Joyce Synek)
13. State Law Claim. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Conspiracy (Ronald Salgado)
14. State Law Claim, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Conspiracy, (Michael McCleary)
15. State Law Claim, Defamation and Conspiracy, (Louis Bianchi, Ronald Salgado, and Michael McCleary)

On each of these counts, $1 million has been requested the defendants,

• Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan
• Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen
• Daniel Jerger
• Robert Scigalski
• James Reilly
• Patrick Hanretty
• Richard Stilling
• Quest Consultants International, Limited
• Kelleher & Buckley, LLC
• Unknown Conspirators

The plaintiff’s attorney is Terry Ekl.

The suit that had been virtually promised by McHenry County State Lou Bianchi during the two trials brought by Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan and Thomas McQueen has been filed in Federal Court.

It outlines fifteen counts, which I’ll wade through this afternoon, so keep checking back, and asks for a jury trial.

Joining Bianchi in the 47-page suit are his assistant Joyce Synek and investigators Ron Salgado and Mike McCleary.

Besides Tonigan, McQueen and Quest, the following individuals are named:

• Daniel Jerger
• Robert Scigalski
• James Reilly
• Patrick Hanretty
• Richard Stilling
• Kellerer & Buckley, Ltd., and
• Unknown Conspirators

The plaintiffs charge they were “the victims of politically and financially motivated criminal investigations orchestrated by Defendants.”

The motivation?

“To remove Bianchi from office”

The method?

“Fabricating false criminal charges and prosecuting…despite the lack of probable cause or credible evidence.”

More specifically, in a general sense,

• manufacturing and presenting false evidence
• concealing exculpatory evidence
• presenting perjured testimony to a grand jury
• engaging in gross investigative and prosecutorial misconduct

“The conspiracy crumbled when Bianchi resisted pressure to resign from office and instead proceeded to trial…” which resulted in a directed verdict, the introduction continues before pointing out that Bianchi and Synek still “suffered significant and severe permanent damages.”

Next comes an extensive outline of the facts of the case, essentially, a timeline of when what happened. (As I read through it, I think it might be easier to follow if I highlight all of the names.)

It is quite long, but it’s all going up so you can read it the same way the judge and jury will:

Facts Common to All Counts of the Complaint

Background of the Conspiracy to Remove Bianchi from Office

9. In November of 2004, Plaintiff Bianchi was elected State’s Attorney of McHenry County after having previously defeated Glenn Gable in the March 2004 Republican primary.

10. Upon taking office on December 2, 2004, Bianchi promptly began reforming the SAO by inter alia:

(a) Eliminating the abuse of plea bargaining with politically connected defense attorneys;

(b) Increasing the amount of hours that all SAO employees were required to work each day;

(c) Refusing to give special deals to political operatives, contributors, and friends of the previous administration; and

(d) Terminating the employment of SAO employees who were unqualified or unwilling to competently perform their assignments.

11. As a result of these reforms, Bianchi frustrated political operatives in McHenry County who had obtained more favorable accommodations with the previous administration and other McHenry County departments.

12. In March of 2007, Bianchi announced his intention to run for re-election in the November 2008 State’s Attorney’s election.

13. Bianchi was opposed in the February 2008 Republican primary by Daniel Regna, a former assistant state’s attorney (ASA) under the previous administration, whom Bianchi had refused to hire.

14. The 2008 Republican primary campaign between Bianchi and Regna was highly contentious, and sharply divided supporters of Bianchi’s reforms and the political operatives who supported Regna in an effort to return the SAO to its prior mode of operation.

15. Bianchi won the February 2008 primary against Regna, prevailed again in the November general election, and in December of 2008, began his second term as State’s Attorney of McHenry County.

16. After failing in their efforts to legally remove Bianchi from office during the 2008 election, Bianchi’s political opponents initiated a politically motivated conspiracy to override the election and force Bianchi from office. The objective of this conspiracy was to arrest, indict, and publicly smear Bianchi, thereby causing him to resign his office, irreparably tarnish his public reputation, and allow his political opponents to install a State’s Attorney who would do their bidding.

The Manipulation of Amy Dalby and

the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor by Bianchi’s Political Enemies

17. From June 2004 until she resigned in July of 2006, Amy Dalby was employed as a secretary in the SAO.

18. Prior to resigning, Dalby stole approximately 5000 documents from a SAO computer, including confidential and sensitive documents concerning pending investigations and prosecutions.

19. Dalby stole the documents from the SAO at the suggestion of Kristen Foley, an ASA whom Bianchi had demoted from her position as Chief of the Civil Division. In the summer of 2007, Foley began actively working on the political campaign of Bianchi’s 2008 primary opponent, Daniel Regna.

20. In October 2007, Dalby gave the stolen documents to Kristen Foley for use in Regna’s campaign. Foley then disclosed the stolen documents to the media.

21. In November of 2007, Bianchi learned of the theft and petitioned a court to appoint a special prosecutor, independent of the SAO, to investigate, and if necessary, prosecute the responsible individual.

22. In March of 2009, Dalby was arrested and charged with six felony offenses. On or about June 1, 2009, Ms. Dalby pled guilty to computer tampering.

23. In the meantime, on February 23, 2009, in the Circuit Court of McHenry County, Daniel Regna filed a politically motivated petition to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Bianchi, alleging that Dalby performed political work while working in the SAO.

24. Likewise, on April 23, 2009, at the direction and/or with the assistance of Bianchi’s political enemies, Dalby herself filed a petition for appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate her allegation that she performed political work while working in the SAO from December of 2004 until July of 2006.

25. The three year statute of limitation on any allegations made in Amy Dalby’s petition expired no later than July 2009, three years after Dalby left the SAO. Nonetheless, on September 4, 2009, McHenry County Circuit Court Judge Gordon Graham granted Dalby’s petition to appoint a special prosecutor.

26. Judge Graham also granted McHenry County’s Petition to Intervene and allowed the State’s Attorney’s Appellate Prosecutor’s Office to represent the interests of McHenry County in the matter.

27. On September 18, 2009, Judge Graham appointed Defendant Tonigan as a special state’s attorney and appointed Defendant McQueen to “assist” Tonigan.

28. Judge Graham’s order limited Defendants Tonigan and McQueen’s authority to investigating and/or prosecuting Dalby’s allegation that she performed political work at the SAO from December 2004 until July 2006.

29. The court file in the case appointing Defendants Tonigan and McQueen was later sealed and McHenry County, despite having an appearance on file, was not served with notice of a motion to seal the file and was not heard on the matter.

30. Furthermore, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen convinced Judge Graham, in an ex parte fashion, and without any input from McHenry County or its attorney, to compensate each of them at a rate of $250 an hour. This agreement violated 55 ILCS 5/3-9008, which, in order to avoid abuses of the public fisc, prohibits special state’s attorneys from exceeding the compensation of the elected state’s attorney, in a given year.

31. In October of 2009, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen interviewed Dalby and learned, by that time, at the very latest, that the statute of limitations barred any prosecution of Bianchi, or anyone else, for the allegations made by Dalby, even if true.

October-November 2009: Tonigan and McQueen Illegally Expand Their Investigation

32. Despite having a legal obligation to do so, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen did not terminate their investigation in October of 2009. Instead, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen unilaterally began an illegal taxpayer funded investigation into Bianchi and the SAO that grossly exceeded their limited legal authority. Defendants Tonigan and McQueen’s illegal investigation included misrepresenting themselves as special state’s attorneys and interviewing individuals regarding matters that far exceeded the scope of their limited appointment.

33. In order to continue the illegal investigation of Bianchi, fabricate a timely charge, and continue billing McHenry County exorbitant fees, in November of 2009, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen sought to expand their investigative authority. In order to conceal their conduct and prevent a challenge to the unwarranted expansion, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen decided not to properly petition the court, as required by Illinois law.

34. Instead, on November 18, 2009, Defendant Tonigan wrote Judge Graham an ex parte letter which, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, was not sent to the County or its attorney, who had an appearance on file in the case. Tonigan’s letter was written on the letterhead of his employer, Defendant Kelleher & Buckley.

35. In the letter, Defendant Tonigan claimed that he and Defendant McQueen had already interviewed a number of witnesses and based on those interviews asked Judge Graham to “expand the order defining the role of our investigation.”

36. In order to expand his authority and persuade Judge Graham that Bianchi should be investigated for crimes that were not time-barred, Defendant Tonigan’s letter contained the following blatantly false statements regarding Bianchi:

(a) Dalby stated that she trained her successor [Joyce Synek], to perform political work on County time;

(b) There is a likelihood Synek provided secretarial services for Bianchi’s political interests on County time at least until September or October of 2007;

(c) Witnesses provided information about possible illegal acts by Bianchi related to his misuse or theft of County funds; and

(d) A witness indicated that Bianchi utilized County vehicles for his personal and political use.

37. Based upon those false representations, on January 7, 2010, Judge Graham signed an order, provided by Defendant Tonigan, granting Defendants Tonigan and McQueen the authority to investigate and prosecute Bianchi and “any and all persons” relative to any misappropriation or theft from “2005 and thereafter.”

December 2009-May 2010 Investigation: The Special Prosecutors and Quest Investigators Collaborate to Fabricate Evidence

38. Around December of 2009, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen retained an investigative firm, Defendant Quest, to investigate Bianchi. A billing arrangement was determined and agreed to, on an ex parte basis, by Defendant Tonigan, Defendant Quest, and Judge Graham, without any participation by McHenry County, the entity that was ordered to pay Defendant Quest’s bills. It was determined that each of Defendant Quest’s employees would be billed at an exorbitant rate for police investigators of $135 an hour, with the exception of Defendant Jerger, whose time was to be billed at the unheard of rate of $250 an hour.

39. After being appointed as special investigators, Quest employees, including, but not limited to, Defendants Jerger, Scigalski, Reilly, Hanretty, and Stilling (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Quest Investigators”) participated, with Defendants Tonigan and McQueen, in a wide ranging politically and financially motivated investigation of Bianchi and the SAO.

40. Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, the Quest investigators, and other as yet unnamed co-conspirators, met and agreed, through explicit and/or implicit means, to manufacture and fabricate evidence for the purpose of removing Bianchi from office by charging and prosecuting Bianchi and other SAO employees for criminal offenses, despite the lack of probable cause or credible evidence.

41. In furtherance of that agreement, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen interviewed individuals for the purpose of obtaining rumor and hearsay information to support their predetermined decision to prosecute Bianchi and remove him from office.

42. Defendants Tonigan and McQueen also directed the Defendant Quest Investigators to conduct certain interviews for the purpose of manufacturing and fabricating evidence.

43. The Defendant Quest Investigators represented themselves to witnesses as McHenry County Special Investigators who had been engaged by Defendant Tonigan to conduct an investigation into the official misconduct in the SAO.

44. After conducting interviews, the Defendant Quest Investigators informed Defendants Tonigan and McQueen of information related during the interviews.

45. After consulting with Defendants Tonigan and McQueen, the Defendant Quest Investigators prepared reports regarding certain interviews. In furtherance of their conspiratorial agreement with Defendants Tonigan and McQueen and in an effort to manufacture and fabricate evidence against Bianchi and other SAO employees, the Defendant Quest Investigators knowingly included false and manufactured information in their reports of interviews, to wit:

a) Defendant Scigalski falsely reported that former ASA William Dennison stated that:

i) Bianchi held campaign meetings during working hours that were attended by SAO employees;

ii) Bianchi had an assistant, Jamie Rein, walking around the office selling tickets to his fundraiser; and

iii) Bianchi allowed SAO employees to leave the office early the day of his fundraiser because he wanted attorneys to arrive early.

b) Defendant Scigalski and/or Defendant Reilly falsely reported that former ASA Nichole Owens stated that:

i) Bianchi used SAO employees to attend lunch time “political campaign committee meetings”;

ii) Bianchi’s campaign committee members were responsible for political activities in the SAO; and

iii) Expos (community sponsored public information forums) were used to promote Bianchi and comp time (paid time off) should not have been given to ASAs for attendance.

c) Defendant Reilly falsely reported that former ASA Mary McClellan stated that:

i) Former ASA Michelle Courier ran the Bianchi campaign out of her office.

d) Defendant Scigalski and/or Defendant Stilling falsely reported that ASA Jamie Rein stated that:

i) The entire SAO was asked to attend a Bianchi fundraiser;

ii) She was told her lack of attendance at a fundraiser might affect her career;

iii) Attendance at expos by ASAs was mandatory and the expos were held to provide a political advantage to Bianchi; and

iv) She received comp time for attending a Bianchi’s fundraiser.

46. All of the former and current ASAs described in paragraph 45 (a-d) have confirmed that they did not make any of the statements attributed to them in Defendants’ false reports.

May-August 2010: The Special Prosecutors Engage in Gross Misconduct in Connection With the Special Grand Jury.

47. On April 9, 2010, Judge Graham convened a special grand jury and also appointed, at taxpayers expense, fifteen (15) Quest investigators as agents of the special grand jury, including Defendants Jerger, Scigalski, Reilly, Hanretty, and Stilling.

48. After the special grand jury was convened, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen continued to lead the politically motivated investigation by interviewing witnesses personally and directing the Quest investigators who to interview, what questions to ask, and what information to document.

49. The Defendant Quest Investigators served search warrants, subpoenas, and subpoenas duces tecum at the direction of Defendants Tonigan and McQueen. In violation of Illinois law, the special grand jury did not issue or authorize the issuance of these subpoenas, but rather they were unilaterally issued by Defendants Tonigan and McQueen, without the special grand jury’s knowledge or consent.

50. Pursuant to these illegal subpoenas, from May 21, 2010 until October 22, 2010, numerous witnesses produced documents to Defendants Tonigan and McQueen and appeared before the special grand jury to testify.

51. Defendants Tonigan and McQueen engaged in gross misconduct for the purpose of improperly influencing the special grand jury to indict Bianchi and Synek for crimes that were not supported by probable cause, to wit:

a) Defendant McQueen, under the supervision of Defendant Tonigan, improperly testified as a witness to the following unsworn and false statements of fact:

i) that County employees were given “comp time” for attending parades and evening public events which were political in nature;

ii) that Thomas Carroll, a former ASA, was directly told that he was expected to participate in political activities when he was hired as chief of the civil division;

iii) that political pressure was brought to bear on SAO employees during Bianchi’s tenure;

iv) that all of the documents that McQueen presented to the special grand jury, which came from the hard drive of a computer used by Joyce Synek, were political in nature; and

v) that Joan Hoffman, an administrative assistant in the SAO, provided McQueen political documents from her SAO computer.

52. Defendant Tonigan refused to interview Bianchi or allow Bianchi to testify before the special grand jury, despite Bianchi’s requests to do so.

53. Defendant Scigalski falsely testified before the special grand jury that former ASA Nichole Owens told him that:

a) Bianchi assumed and expected that ASAs would do political activities, including attending fundraisers, leaving work early to go to campaign meetings, and marching in parades, for which they received comp time;

b) One of Ronald Salgado’s chief jobs, as the chief investigator for the SAO, was to bring people together for political reasons;

c) Bianchi believed he could give comp time to employees for political work; and

d) Political campaigning was undertaken at Bianchi’s direction by SAO employees.

54. Defendant Scigalski also falsely testified before the special grand jury that SAO employees were given paid time by the County of McHenry for performing political work.

55. Defendant Daniel Jerger deliberately gave misleading testimony and intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence from the special grand jury for the purpose of conveying the false impression that Plaintiff Synek obstructed justice by deliberately deleting documents on a computer after receiving a grand jury subpoena.

56. At the time of that false testimony, Defendant Jerger knew there was no evidence that any document had been deleted from the computer after the issuance of the subpoena. Defendant Jerger also learned that the documents were not recoverable due to a computer virus rather than any wrongdoing by Bianchi or Synek. This information was also known to both Defendants Tonigan and McQueen prior to seeking indictments against Bianchi and Synek based on those accusations.

September 2010: Bianchi and Synek are Indicted and Arrested Without Probable Cause.

57. On or about September 10, 2010, based upon the Defendants’ misconduct as described above, the special grand jury returned an indictment against Bianchi, which was crafted by Defendants Tonigan and McQueen, for Conspiracy to commit official misconduct and obstruction of justice, nineteen (19) counts of Official Misconduct, and Unlawful Communication with a Witness (10 CF 933). None of these 21 counts were supported by probable cause or any competent evidence.

58. On September 10, 2010, based upon the Defendants’ misconduct as described above, the special grand jury returned an indictment against Synek for Conspiracy to commit official misconduct and obstruction of justice, four (4) counts of perjury, and obstruction of justice (10 CF 934). None of these counts were supported by probable cause or any competent evidence.

59. The indictment alleged that Bianchi and Syneck conspired to commit official misconduct and obstruction of justice. There was no evidence presented to the special grand jury that there was any agreement, either explicit or implicit, between Bianchi and Synek to commit either official misconduct or obstruction of justice.

60. The obstruction of justice charge against Synek falsely alleged that Synek, in agreement with Bianchi, deleted certain files after receiving a grand jury subpoena to produce those documents. Defendants knew the charge was false at the time of the indictment.

61. The indictment falsely alleged that Bianchi, in agreement with Synek, committed official misconduct by causing Synek to prepare and maintain certain documents on her County computer. The charges were insufficient on their face, as they failed to allege that Bianchi violated any law. Furthermore, no evidence was presented to the special grand jury that any of the documents that Synek allegedly prepared were actually typed by Synek, that they were typed on a County computer, or that they were typed during County work hours. Likewise, there was no evidence that Bianchi directed Synek to prepare any of the documents on a County computer or during County work hours. At the time the indictment was returned, the Defendant special prosecutors and Defendant Quest investigators knew that no such evidence existed.

62. Defendants Tonigan and McQueen knew that the indictments returned against Bianchi and Synek were not supported by probable cause. The indictments were obtained by Defendants Tonigan and McQueen, in concert with the Defendant Quest Investigators and other as yet unnamed co-conspirators, by first creating and then presenting false and manufactured evidence and statements of law to the special grand jury.

63. As a result of the indictments, a warrant was issued for the arrests of both Bianchi and Synek. On or about September 10, 2010, Bianchi and Synek were both placed under arrest by the McHenry County Sheriff and held in custody at the McHenry County Jail.

64. The indictments and arrests of Bianchi and Synek were widely covered by print, television, and electronic media throughout the Chicagoland area. Bianchi was widely described as the first State’s Attorney in the history of the State of Illinois to be indicted while in office. Based on the indictments and media coverage, Bianchi’s political enemies called on Bianchi to resign from office and questioned his ability to continue to serve as State’s Attorney while under indictment.

65. Despite the concerted efforts by the Defendants and other as yet unnamed co-conspirators, Bianchi refused to resign and continued with his duties as State’s Attorney.

October 2010: Based on the First Indictment Failing to Even State an Actual Offense Against Bianchi, the Special Prosecutors Use Perjured Testimony to Obtain a Superceding Indictment

66. The first indictment failed to allege Bianchi committed an actual underlying crime, which is required to charge official misconduct. Therefore, on October 22, 2010, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen sought a superceding indictment against Bianchi.

67 In order to obtain the superceding indictment, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen fabricated an underlying crime of “theft of labor, services, and use of property” by knowingly presenting the perjured testimony of Defendant Richard Stilling to the special grand jury. Defendant Stilling falsely testified that Peter Austin, the McHenry County Administrator, told him that only the County Administrator could authorize the use of County property for non-county business and that Peter Austin had not given anyone in the SAO such permission. In fact, Peter Austin never made any such statement to Defendant Stilling. Stilling never prepared a report of his interview of Peter Austin.

68. Furthermore, Defendants McQueen and Stilling falsely misrepresented to the special grand jury that the County of McHenry policy manual did not authorize Bianchi to give his SAO employees permission to use a County computer for non-work purposes. Defendant Stilling, as well as Defendants Tonigan and McQueen, knew the manual expressly gave Bianchi such authority. This perjured testimony was presented to the special grand jury by Defendants Tonigan and McQueen for the purpose of securing a corrupt indictment charging that Bianchi committed the crime of theft of County property.

69. Other than the above described testimony of Defendants Stilling and McQueen, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen presented no other evidence or testimony to the special grand jury in support of the superceding indictment.

70. Based on the above described misconduct, the special grand jury returned a superceding indictment against Bianchi and Synek alleging that Bianchi committed the offenses of official misconduct by committing the underlying offense of “Theft of labor, services, and use of property” of McHenry County (720 ILCS 5/16-3). Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, and the Quest Investigators knew that there was no probable cause or competent evidence to support the superceding indictment.

October 2010-March 2011: Defendants Withhold Critical Evidence and Plaintiffs Bianchi and Synek are Acquitted After a Motion for Directed Finding

71. After all of the judges in McHenry County recused themselves from Bianchi and Synek’s criminal cases, the Illinois Supreme Court appointed Judge Joseph McGraw, a circuit court judge in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, to preside over the cases.

72. In furtherance of their conspiracy to prosecute and convict Bianchi and Synek for crimes they did not commit, Defendants Tonigan, McQueen and the Quest investigators deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence, including notes and witness statements, during the prosecutions of Bianchi and Synek.

73. Not until they were twice ordered by Judge McGraw to produce all handwritten notes did Defendant Tonigan and Defendant McQueen finally tender Defendant Jerger’s handwritten notes containing critical witness statements from over ten separate interviews. This untimely disclosure, five days before trial, was intended to prevent Bianchi and Synek from discovering there was no evidence that any document was erased from a computer after a subpoena for those documents was issued and that a computer virus explained why certain documents could not be recovered from the computer, rather than any deliberate act by Synek or Bianchi. This evidence eviscerated the conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges against Bianchi and Synek.

74. By fabricating evidence during the investigation through manufactured interview reports and perjured grand jury testimony, and then concealing the exculpatory evidence which established the falsity of the charges after indictment, Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, and the Quest Investigators forced Bianchi and Synek to remain under indictment for more than six months.

75. The withheld information would have additionally revealed gross investigative and prosecutorial misconduct and perjured testimony before the grand jury, thereby exposing due process violations which would have led to the dismissal of Bianchi and Synek’s indictments prior to trial.

76. On March 23, 2011, after a two day bench trial, Judge Joseph McGraw granted Bianchi and Synek’s Motion for a Directed Finding and acquitted them of all charges. Judge McGraw found that the charges of conspiracy and official misconduct were all fatally defective as they failed to allege essential elements of the offenses and that Defendants McQueen and Tonigan failed to present any evidence to support any of the charges.

The Conspiracy to Force Bianchi From Office Continues

77. Shortly after obtaining the first indictment against Bianchi and Synek, Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, and Scigalski began a second illegal and unauthorized investigation of Bianchi, and two of his employees, Plaintiffs Ronald J. Salgado and Michael J. McCleary. This investigation included interviewing witnesses about Bianchi’s handling of criminal cases, which clearly exceeded their authority under the orders signed by Judge Graham appointing Defendants Tonigan and McQueen on September 18, 2009 and January 7, 2010.

78. On October 1, 2010, long after Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, and Scigalski had already begun their second unauthorized investigation, Defendant McQueen filed a verified petition to expand their investigation which contained knowingly false statements regarding Bianchi’s allegedly improper intervention in three criminal cases, to wit:

a) that Bianchi directed an ASA to reduce a plea offer to Ronald Salgado’s nephew (Jeremy Reid) from five to four years;

b) that Bianchi asked an ASA to secure a recognizance bond for one of his relatives (Michael Morzos), a felony defendant, and instructed the ASA to delay the case so his relative could benefit from a diversion program which was not yet operational; and

c) that Bianchi interceded in the case of a defendant (Tom Salvi), who was related to a financial supporter of Bianchi.

79. Defendant McQueen’s misrepresentations in the petition were intended to convince Judge Graham to expand Defendants Tonigan and McQueen’s authority to investigate and prosecute Bianchi and Salgado for crimes they did not commit and further the goal of the conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of Bianchi and drive him from office.

80. Based on Defendant McQueen’s perjured petition, on October 1, 2010, Judge Gordon Graham signed an order appointing Defendants McQueen and Tonigan as special state’s attorneys to investigate and prosecute individuals for using their official position in the SAO to give benefits in criminal prosecutions to friends, relatives, and supporters.

81. In regards to the second investigation, Defendants Tonigan, McQueen and the Quest investigators, and other as yet unnamed co-conspirators agreed, through explicit and/or implicit means, to fabricate evidence for the purpose of charging and prosecuting Bianchi and Salgado with criminal offenses, despite the lack of probable cause or competent evidence to support such charges.

82. Prior to and after October 1, 2010, Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, Scigalski and Hanretty, interviewed several witnesses.

83. Prior to all witness interviews, Defendants Scigalski and Hanretty identified themselves as McHenry County Special Investigators who had been engaged by Special State’s Attorney Henry Tonigan to conduct an investigation into official misconduct in the SAO.

84. The interviews conducted by Defendants Scigalski and Hanretty occurred at the direction of Defendants Tonigan and/or McQueen. After they were completed, the Defendant Quest Investigators informed Defendants Tonigan and/or McQueen of the substance of several interviews.

85. Several witnesses interviewed by Defendants McQueen, Scigalski, and Hanretty provided information that negated the credibility of any accusations against Bianchi and Salgado. Defendants McQueen, Tonigan, and the Quest investigators deliberately ignored and failed to document that exculpatory information.

86. After conducting witness interviews, Defendants Hanretty and Scigalski, in agreement with Defendants Tonigan and McQueen, manufactured and fabricated false inculpatory evidence against Bianchi and Salgado in their reports while failing to properly document exculpatory evidence, to wit:

(a) Defendant Scigalski falsely reported that ASA Demetri Tsilimigras stated that he was directed by Bianchi to present the victim in the Thomas Salvi case with various alternatives to prosecution, one of which was for the victim to accept an apology and an agreement that Thomas Salvi would undergo counseling;

(b) Defendant Scigalski deliberately failed to record ASA Tsilimigras’ actual statement that he was the one who advised Bianchi of the options that could be given to the victim and Bianchi told him that if the victim wanted to proceed to trial, that was to be the end of the discussion;

(c) Defendant Scigalski falsely reported that former ASA Kirk Chrzanowski told him that Bianchi told him that the sentence for Jeremy Reid was to be four years, rather than five years, and that following Reid’s sentencing, the Reid family was greeted at the rear of the courtroom with Bianchi celebrating the sentence;

(d) Defendant Scigalski deliberately failed to report Chrzanowski’s actual statement that Bianchi did not direct him to reduce Jeremy Reid’s sentence to four years and that Bianchi did not have any face to face contact with Reid’s family;

(e) With the knowledge of Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, and Scigalski, Defendant Hanretty intentionally failed to report the statement of Sue Ann Serdar, the president of the Pro-Life Victory PAC, that contributions to Bianchi’s campaign were not in exchange for, or in anyway related to, Bianchi dismissing any charges against Thomas Salvi;

(f) With the knowledge of Defendant McQueen, Defendant Scigalski deliberately failed to prepare an investigative report to document the statement of Philip Weyna, the chairman of the Pro-Life Victory PAC, denying that any contribution was given to Bianchi in exchange for dismissing a case; and

(g) After Defendants McQueen and Scigalski interviewed Philip Hiscock, the former Chief of the SAO’s Criminal Division and ASA Kirk Chrzanowksi’s supervisor during the pendency of the Jeremy Reid case, the Defendants deliberately failed to prepare an investigative report to document Hiscock’s statement that it was he (Hiscock) and not Bianchi who made the decision to offer Jeremy Reid a four year sentence on a plea negotiation.

87. Defendants knew that as a result of the fabricated inculpatory evidence and exculpatory evidence described in paragraph 86(a-g) above, that no probable cause or competent evidence supported any accusation against Bianchi and Salgado alleging interference with any criminal cases.

December 2010 -February 2011: Defendants Again Engage in Gross Misconduct in Connection With the Special Grand Jury.

88. In relation to the second investigation of Bianchi, the Quest Investigators served subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum at the direction of Defendants Tonigan and McQueen. These special grand jury subpoenas, which were issued by Defendant Tonigan and/or Defendant McQueen, were not in fact authorized or issued by the special grand jury, in violation of Illinois law.

89. As a result of the illegal subpoenas that were issued by Defendants Tonigan and McQueen and served by the Quest investigators, between December 3, 2010 and February 24, 2011, witnesses appeared and testified before the special grand jury.

90. When appearing before the special grand jury, Defendants deliberately engaged in misconduct for the purpose of improperly influencing the special grand jury to indict Bianchi and Salgado for crimes that were not supported by probable cause or competent evidence, to wit:

(a) Defendant McQueen, under the supervision of Defendant Tonigan, falsely testified as a witness that Bianchi offered benefits to a few defendants that were not offered to everyone, in contravention of the way the system was supposed to work;

(b) Defendant McQueen, under the supervision of Defendant Tonigan, knowingly presented the deliberately misleading testimony of Defendant Scigalski to the special grand jury concerning the baseless allegation that Bianchi dismissed the Salvi case in return for a campaign contribution from the Pro-Life Victory PAC, which Defendants McQueen and Scigalski knew to be false;

(c) Defendant Scigalski testified falsely before the special grand jury that he had been told by Defendant McQueen that Gwen Salvi, Thomas Salvi’s wife, testified that she had contact with Bianchi through the Pro-Life Victory PAC;

 (d) Defendants McQueen and Scigalski, under the supervision of Defendant Tonigan, knowingly presented false testimony to the special grand jury that Bianchi directed an ASA to reduce the sentence of Salgado’s “nephew,” Jeremy Reid, from five years to four years;

 (e) Defendants failed to advise the special grand jury that Jeremy Reid was not Ronald Salgado’s nephew or otherwise related to Salgado;

 (f) Defendants failed to advise the special grand jury that Michael Morzos was not related to Bianchi; and

 (g) Defendants failed to advise the special grand jury that Bianchi was not involved in any decisions related to the disposition of Morzos’ case.

 February 2011: Bianchi and Salgado are Indicted and Arrested Without Probable Cause

91. On February 24, 2011, based upon the Defendants’ misconduct described above, the special grand jury returned an indictment against Bianchi for three counts of official misconduct (11 CF 169) based on Bianchi’s alleged intervention in the three criminal cases described above.

92. On February 24, 2011, the special grand jury also returned an indictment against Salgado for official misconduct based on the false accusation that Salgado told an ASA that his nephew, Jeremy Reid, should be given a four, instead of five, year sentence.

93. None of the charges were supported by probable cause or any competent evidence and in fact were directly contrary to the information known to Defendants McQueen, Tonigan, Scigalski and Hanretty.

94. As a result of the indictments, a warrant was issued for the arrest of both Bianchi and Salgado. On or about February 28, 2011, Bianchi and Salgado were both placed under arrest by the McHenry County Sheriff and held in custody at the McHenry County Jail.

95. Salgado’s bond was set at $50,000, requiring Salgado to post $5000 prior to being released from the McHenry County Jail.

February 2011: The Indictment and Arrest of McCleary Without Probable Cause.

 96. As an investigator for the SAO, McCleary was required to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and his duties included locating and serving witnesses with subpoenas. As such, McCleary was assigned a McHenry County vehicle.

97. Defendants Tonigan, McQueen and the Quest Investigators began an investigation into McCleary’s personal use of the County vehicle.

98. In relation to their investigation of McCleary, Defendants McQueen and Tonigan deliberately presented misleading evidence to the special grand jurors to create the false impression that McCleary was not authorized to use a County vehicle for personal use when McQueen knew that based on his position and duties, McCleary was in fact authorized to use his County vehicle for personal use.

99. On February 24, 2011, Defendant McQueen, under the supervision of Defendant Tonigan, improperly testified as a witness to the special grand jury by falsely stating that McCleary had asserted his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer whether he reimbursed the County for gas mileage or expenses. At the time, Defendant McQueen was fully aware that McCleary was never asked a single question relating to reimbursement to the County for gas mileage or expenses.

100. Defendant McQueen further falsely told the special grand jurors that he had issued a subpoena for any documents which would show that McCleary did reimburse the County for gas mileage or expenses and that no such documents were produced. In fact, no subpoena was issued which called for any such documents.

101. On February 24, 2011, based upon the misconduct described above, the special grand jury returned an indictment against McCleary for official misconduct. The indictment falsely alleged that McCleary committed a theft of the County vehicle assigned to him.

102. As a result of the indictment, a warrant was issued for the arrest of McCleary. On or about February 28, 2011, McCleary was placed under arrest by the McHenry County Sheriff and held in custody at the McHenry County Jail.

Tonigan and McQueen’s Defamatory Statements Further Tarnish the Reputation of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary

103. On February 28, 2011, the Defendant law firm of Kelleher & Buckley, acting through its agent Defendant Tonigan, and Defendant McQueen, issued a press release to the media. In the press release, Defendants repeated the inflammatory allegations contained in the indictments against Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary, which, as described above, they knew to be false and not supported by probable cause or any competent evidence.

104. On February 28, 2011, Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, and Scigalski also held a press conference. At that time, McQueen, under the supervision and/or direction of Tonigan, again repeated the inflammatory allegations contained in the indictments against Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary, which, as described above, he knew to be false and not supported by probable cause or any competent evidence. During the press conference, Defendant McQueen also made additional false and inflammatory statements regarding Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary, to wit:

(a) Defendant McQueen falsely stated that after the return of the first indictment Scigalski received calls from a number of lawyers regarding cases handled by Bianchi and that those cases suggested that the equal protection rights of all defendants were not being upheld because of favoritism;

(b) Defendant McQueen falsely stated that in a case where the defendant was Salgado’s nephew, Salgado called the ASA handling the case and told the ASA that the negotiated plea of five years would be reduced to four years;

(c) Defendant McQueen falsely stated that after being called into Bianchi’s office, the ASA was told that the sentence for Salgado’s nephew would not be a five year period of incarceration but rather it would be four years; and

(e) Defendant McQueen falsely stated that Bianchi instructed an ASA to give his nephew a recognizance bond on a criminal matter.

105. Defendant McQueen and Tongian’s statements in the press release and press conference were defamatory, violated the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and were made in furtherance of the conspiracy to convict Bianchi, Salgado and McCleary, force Bianchi to resign from office, and tarnish the public’s opinion of Bianchi.

June-August 2011:Salgado and McCleary’s Cases Are Dismissed by the Court and Bianchi is Acquitted After a Motion for Directed Finding

106. In furtherance of the conspiracy to prosecute and convict Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary for crimes they did not commit, Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, Scigalski, and Hanretty deliberately and without lawful justification withheld exculpatory evidence, including notes of critical witness interviews and witness statements, during the prosecutions of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary.

107. Only after Bianchi filed a Motion to Compel and then a Motion for Sanctions against Defendants Tonigan and McQueen, did the special prosecutors produce the notes prepared by Defendant Hanretty of the interview he conducted of Sue Ann Serdar. However, Defendant Hanretty intentionally excluded from his notes Sue Ann Serdar’s exculpatory statement, in response to a direct question, that Pro-Life Victory did not contribute to Bianchi in exchange for Bianchi dismissing the case against Thomas Salvi.

108. On June 24, 2011, Defendant Scigalski deliberately gave perjured testimony at an evidentiary hearing on a Motion for Sanctions regarding who he spoke to during the investigation and what those individuals told him. This was done in an effort to conceal the identify of the other participants in the conspiracy to charge and prosecute Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary for crimes they did not commit.

109. By fabricating evidence during the investigation through manufactured interview reports and perjured grand jury testimony and then concealing their wrongdoing after indictment, Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, and the Quest Investigators forced Bianchi to remain under indictment for more than five months.

110. The withheld information revealed gross investigative and prosecutorial misconduct, and perjured testimony before the special grand jury, which if timely disclosed, would have led to the dismissal of Bianchi’s indictment well in advance of trial.

111. On June 3, 2011, Judge McGraw dismissed the charge of official misconduct against Ronald Salgado based on the failure of the charge to state an offense against Salgado.

112. On June 29, 2011, Judge McGraw dismissed the charge of official misconduct against Michael McCleary based on the failure of the charge to state an offense against McCleary.

113. Bianchi’s second bench trial began on August 1, 2011. At trial, Defendant McQueen was assisted by Leone Flosi, an employee of Quest. McQueen falsely represented to Judge McGraw that Flosi was an attorney who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois.

114. On August 1 , 2011, immediately prior to the commencement of trial and without any prior notification to Bianchi, Defendant McQueen dismissed the charge against Bianchi which related to the prosecution of Michael Morzos. On August 2, 2011, after a bench trial, Judge McGraw granted Bianchi’s Motion for Directed Finding and acquitted Bianchi of the two remaining charges. Judge McGraw ruled that Defendant McQueen presented no evidence to suggest that Bianchi improperly handled any criminal prosecution or that he committed an offense of official misconduct.

The Conspiracy Between The Special Prosecutors, Quest Investigators, and Other Unnamed Individuals Was Driven By Political and Financial Motivations

115. The improper investigation and prosecution of Bianchi and his employees was initiated by Bianchi’s political enemies, including Daniel Regna, who lost the primary election to Bianchi in 2008.

116. Defendants Tonigan and McQueen’s improper investigation and prosecution of Bianchi, Synek, Salgado, and McCleary took place over a period of 23 months despite the fact that there was never any evidence indicating that Bianchi, Synek, Salagdo, or McCleary committed any crime. Defendants Tonigan and McQueen continued the case for this extended period to allow them to recoup the benefits of a fraudulent billing scheme, which enabled them to bill McHenry County taxpayers outrageous sums of money with no oversight or accountability.

117. Once the Defendant Quest investigators were hired by Defendant Tonigan and appointed as special investigators, they too engaged in fraudulent and excessive billing by overstating the amount of time that was spent on work, performing work that was unnecessary, and persisting in an investigation that was baseless in order to allow the scheme to continue unabated.

118. Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, and the Quest investigators deliberately concealed the results of their investigation which revealed no criminal wrongdoing and instead manufactured evidence so that they could continue to bill McHenry County taxpayers exorbitant sums for unnecessary services.

119. From February 2010 until March 2011, court orders were obtained which required McHenry County to pay Defendants Kelleher & Buckley, McQueen, and Quest specified amounts for their investigation and prosecution of Plaintiffs which were well in excess of what is permissible under Illinois law.

120. In the 14 month period from September 2009 until November 2010, McHenry County was forced to pay Kelleher & Buckley $81,027, Defendant McQueen $103,563, and Defendant Quest $127,668, and is anticipating additional bills from Defendants covering the nine (9) month time period of December 2010 until August 2011, which included the second investigation of Bianchi and both trials which were conducted in March of 2011 and August 2011.

Suit Counts

1. Fourth Amendment Violation–False Arrest (Conspiracy), Bianchi and Synek’s first arrest
2. Fourth Amendment Violation–False Arrest (Conspiracy), Second Arrest of Bianchi and Salgado’s arrest
3. Fourth Amendment Violation–False Arrest (Conspiracy), McCleary’s Arrest
4. Fourteenth Amendment–Due Process Violations (Conspiracy), First Prosecution of Bianchi and Synek
5. Fourteenth Amendment–Due Process Violations (Conspiracy), Second Prosecution of Bianchi
6. First Amendment–Retaliatory Prosecution (Conspiracy), First Prosecution of Bianchi and Synek
7. First Amendment–Retaliatory Prosecution (Conspiracy), Second Prosecution of Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary
8. State Law Claim–Malicious Prosecution and Conspiracy, First Prosecution of Bianchi and Synek
9. State Law Claim–Malicious Prosecution and Conspiracy, Second Prosecution of Bianchi and Salgado
10. State Law Claim–Malicious Prosecution and Conspiracy, McCleary’s Prosecution
11. State Law Claim, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Conspiracy (Louis Bianchi)
12. State Law Claim, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Conspiracy (Joyce Synek)
13. State Law Claim. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Conspiracy (Ronald Salgado)
14. State Law Claim, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Conspiracy, (Michael McCleary)
15. State Law Claim, Defamation and Conspiracy, (Louis Bianchi, Ronald Salgado, and Michael McCleary)

Above and beyond the $137,669 in bills already presented by Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan fo Quest International are another $87,331.

And that’s through Sunday, March 20, 2011.

It does not even count this week of the trial.

Take a look at the most recent billing records that McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi Defense Counsel managed to convince Judge Joseph McGraw to get Quest to produce. The ones below (click to enlarge)are those which contain March 2011 billings.

This is the level of detail I believe that the McHenry County Board should have insisted upon before approving any of their bills.

Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan’s bill for his multi-year investigation of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s alleged misuse of office resources for political purposes took another step Monday when he filed a bill for August through November of last year.

It was for almost $90,800.

That brings the total almost to $312,300.

Besides the original scope of the investigation, he and Thomas McQueen, the man billing for the most legal time for the four months, have expanded their probe with the approval of Circuit Court Judge Gordon Graham to include official acts of alleged favoritism by State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi and a “nephew” of his Investigator Ron Salgado who was attending Prairie Ridge High School in Crystal Lake.

In addition, Bianchi is charged with “agree(ing) to recognizance bond in a felony theft case for…John Doe #3 who Bianchi said was his ‘nephew’ and that the Assistant State’s Attorney should continue the case until a first offender program was in place in McHenry County so John Doe #3 could have the benefit of that program.”

Bianchi has denied that he had a nephew who got into trouble.

Similar allegations have been lodged against State’s Attorney Investigator Ron Salgado for some shirttail nephew resulting from a long-ago divorce of a relative.

A second investigator has been charged with using his car for personal purposes.

Henry Tonigan, the Special Prosecutor named by then-Associate Judge Gordon Graham to probe political use of the State’s Attorney’s Office by Lou Bianchi, has billed again.

This time it is his associate, Thomas McQueen, who was the big winner.

He bagged $48,120.60 more than twice as much as his boss, Tonigan.

Tonigan, at least titularly the guy in charge of the investigation, only billed $21,798.74.

The agency doing the ground work, Quest, put in for almost as much, $20,873.

Judge Graham’s court order is below:

Note that the bill is only for services rendered in August, September, October and November.

The three months’ bill for December, January and February is still outstanding.

= = = = =

Photo credits: Pete Gonigan, First Electric Newspaper.

The bill?

$21,137.50 for Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan

$24,701.94 for Assistant Special Prosecutor Thomas McQuenn.

$67,098.75 for Quest Consultants, Ltd.