McHenry County Blog

The Judge who twice dismissed criminal charges against McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi says he will decide whether Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen and his Quest investigators have committee contempt of court.

Lawyers for McQueen and Quest employees Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty argued that Winnebago County Judge Joseph McGraw should disqualify himself.

McGraw rejected their arguments, saying that he bore “no malice nor ill will against” McQueen or the Quest investigators whom Bianchi seeks to have held in contempt of court.

He also said he had no knowledge of the case and the disputed facts outside of what he learned in the courtroom during the trial.

Challenged on whether there would be the appearance of impropriety if he ruled on attorney Terry Ekl’s motion, Judge McGraw dismissed suggestions that Quest’s having asked about his

• financials
• personal information
• current and prior residences
• driver’s record
• family information
• etc.

would prejudice his decision on the contempt motion.

Before he became a judge, he said “I knew my life would be subject to a [degree] of public scrutiny.  I don’t think a reasonable person would question the impartiality of the Court.”

After recusal and a change of judge was rejected and over objections that a Special Prosecutor or the State’s Attorney should prosecute the case and that Ekl might use the case to “leverage Bianchi’s Federal civil rights case, the Judge appointed Bianchi attorney Terry Elk to prosecute the case.

“I think it would just hinder the administration of justice to put it [the case] to another attorney,” McGraw said.

Ekl said he would serve without compensation and would not use the contempt case in the Federal litigation.

“In no way have I sought or will seek a settlement [in the Federal case],” Ekl said.  “If I would have wanted to do that, I would have done it before I filed this case.

“I think I’m the person best suited to try this case.”

Referring to the Federal case, McGraw observed, “This Court is a stranger to those proceedings, happily so.”

Ekl immediately told the judge that the maximum penalty he would see was a maximum of a $500 fine and/or six months in jail.

Under the rules in place, that would preclude the possibility of a jury trial.

It would be a bench trial.

Judge McGraw said he would take that as “a binding commitment.”

Ekl proposed “full due process rights” for those he would be prosecuting.

“The whole nine yards,” Judge McGraw emphasized, “as if going to a criminal case.”

Discussing what he was ready to provide the defense attorneys, Ekl said, “Part of the problem in the criminal cases was, ‘Here’s the haystack, where’s the needle?’”

He told of 18,000 pages of emails, “thousands and thousands and thousands of pages are irrelevant in this case.

“We’ll work with you (the defense attorneys) to get you all the relevant documents.”

After the hearing, I asked Ekl if he would seek more discovery.

“I don’t need anymore,” he replied.  He also mentioned that the defendants had “Fifth Amendment rights now.”

Asked if he had a comment, Bianchi replied, “No.”

He was smiling.

 

Terry Ekl, attorney for vindicated McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, argues in filing below against Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen’s motion that another judge should not replace trial Judge Joseph McGraw when his contempt of court motion is considered. You can read McQueen’s argument here.

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

Not only was McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s legal team on the attack in Rockford, but papers were filed in Chicago in his Federal suit now against

• Thomas K. McQueen
• Daniel Jerger
• Robert Scigalski
• James Reilly
• Patrick Hanretty
• Richard Stilling
• Quest Consultants International, Ltd
• Unknown Co-Conspirators

Here’s a summary of the case:

“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.”

Bianchi’s view of the motivation for the alleged “conspiracy” can be inferred from the following:

1. Eliminating the abuse of plea bargaining with politically connected defense attorneys;
2. Increasing the amount of hours that all SAO employees were required to work each day;
3. Refusing to give special deals to political operatives, contributors, and friends of the previous administration; and
4. Terminating the employment of SAO employees who were unqualified or unwilling to competently perform their assignments.

“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,
the court filing says.

The brief outlines the political history of Dan Regna’s running against Bianchi in the 2008 GOP primary election. The contention is made that the primary “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.”

Next the alleged conspiracy is outlined:

“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.”

Steps alleged in the conspiracy are outlined, including Kristen Foley getting documents stolen from then State’s Attorney’s Office and revealing them to the media.

“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,” the legal document continues.

This was followed by a petition filed by Amy Dalby on April 23, 2009.

The brief states that the allegations contained in Dalby’s brief expired no later than June of 2009, yet on September
4, 2009 Associate Judge Gordon Graham appointed a Special Prosecutor to probe the matter.

The “order limited [Henry] 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.”

Ekl, Bianchi’s attorney, argues that Tonigan and McQueen, after interviewing Dalby in October of 2009, should have learned “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.”

The case should then have then been dismissed, the paper argues, but “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.”

Tonigan sent a letter to Graham without notifying Bianchi that resulted in Judge Graham’signing “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.’”

McQueen’s name was not in the order.

That’s when Quest Consultants International entered the case.

Then, “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.”

Laying out what Ekl believe happened next, the brief says, “…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.”

Co-conspirators enter the picture here:

= = = = =
More tomorrow.

 

This is a continuation of what is in McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s motion for contempt of court against Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen and Quest investigators Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty before Rockford Judge Thomas McGraw.

The motion also charges that McQueen knew there was a virus on Bianchi assistant Joyce Synek’s computer, but also withheld that information. Ekl argues that the IT Department’s removal of the virus could explain the emails McQueen and Tonigan said were “missing” from Synek’s machine.

So, why involve Synek in the case.

In an August 6, 2010, email, McQueen writes Scigalski they “should bring some pressure by charging Synek in a complain with perjury and arresting her.”

Scigalski failed to provide notes on interviews with McHenry County Treasurer Bill LeFew, Suzanne Lockhart and Demetri Tsilimigras.

Addition examples are provided.

Concerning a motion to remove Judge McGraw, Ekl reveals that information contained in the motion was “leaked” to an internet website, McHenryCountyLeaks.blogspot.com. [Exhibit KK.]

The article was entitled, “Bianchi’s Judge Received Payments from IASAAP” ["Illinois Association of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor." Exhibit Q. Not the exact title of the article.]

“Great leak, Bob,” McQueen emailed Scigalski.

Turning to Quest investigator Hanretty, Ekl points to information withheld from interviews with Sue Serdar, the former Chairman of the Pro-Life Victory PAC, and Phil Weyma, one of its officers.

McQueen had advanced the hypothesis that because the Political Action Committee had made contributions to both Bianchi and another candidate resulted in a quid pro quo between Bianchi and the other candidate, who was also brought into the case.

That possibility was specifically denied by Serdar, but the denial was not provided to the Defense.

In a motion for sanctions held in Rockford, Hanretty first testified that Serdar told him there was no “this for that” arrangement. A few minutes later he reversed his testimony.

Withholding statements made by Jeffrey Bora about how a supposed “nephew” of Bianchi was given special treatment so he could qualify for an upcoming First Offender Program also comes in criticism, as do reports on Bianchi’s supposedly reducing a sentencing recommendation in another case from 5 to 4 years. Preliminary and final reports from Scigalski are “substantially different” on the sentence reduction count, the court filing claims.

Failure to tender 43 pages of notes from Quest investigate Reilly also is cited in the contempt motion. McQueen told Judge McGraw they didn’t exist.

Next Bianchi’s attorney writes, “Robert Scigalski gave false testimony on June 24, 2012 when he testified that he did not know who Mark Gummerson was. McQueen, who knew Scigalski’s testimony was false, failed to inform the Court and correct the record.”

Below Ekl expands: “Through the recently disclosed emails, it is now known on September 2, 2010, McQueen wrote an email to Scigalski, Tonigan and Jerger with a list of things to do in preparation of Bianchi’s indictment on September 10th. McQueen included in that list the instruction ‘NO MORE CONTACT WITH GUMMERSON.’ See email attached as Exhibit HH.”

Further, “On November 12, 2010, Scigalski wrote McQueen an email indicating that Gummerson was contacting witnesses in the investigation and that Gummerson had information about the pending investigation. Scigalski also told McQueen that he knew Gummerson was a friend of the Sheriff [Keith Nygren] and that ‘[i]f Gummerson is a friend of our position in this investigation when we all meet with him and tell him how he is ruining our chances.’ See email attached as Exhibit II.”

The brief also says that “McQueen failed to disclose witness statements made by Tom Carroll and Scigalski falsely testified under oath regarding Tom Carroll’s statements.”

Chapter and verse is offered as evidence in numerous exhibits.

Monday was the first hearing on McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s motion to hold Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen and two of his investigators in contempt of court.

I asked Bianchi attorney Terry Ekl what happened.

“Basically, nothing,” he replied.

“McQueen didn’t show up. The Judge continued it.

“The Quest corporate lawyers said they need time to get criminal attorneys.”

Before I get into a summary of the motion under consideration, it should be known that this action is like a criminal trial. The subjects of the motion can end up in jail or be fined. If the possible jail time is more than six months or the find more than $500, a jury trial may be requested.

Clearly, Ekl is fired up.

“This one is just incredible,” he told me before I asked for what he considered most egregious.

Ekl pointed to the indictment of Bianchi assistant Joyce Synek.

Defense attorneys did not get the hard drive from which Synek was accused of deleting files until two weeks before her trial.

It turned out that the defense’s computer expert figured out that the files had been deleted by the McHenry County IT folks as they were trying to rid it of a virus.

“McQueen knew it,” Ekl explained.

“It is the most egregious violation of Brady material I have seen.” he continued.

For us non-lawyers, “Brady material” is evidence that is favorable to a defendant. It must be turned over to the defense prior to trial.

“To go ahead and indict her when you know there is an absolutely clear cut explanation for the deletion of documents is absolutely appalling and, then, not disclose that to the defense as part of their mandatory duty is highly contemptuous,” Ekl asserted.

Having given you a flavor of the upcoming proceedings, let me lay out the contents of the motion

Bianchi’s court filing says Special Prosecutor Thomas McQueen “engaged in gross misconduct by knowingly making material misrepresentations to Judge [Joseph] McGraw in open court and filed pleadings, failing to comply with court orders, and failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to Bianchi…”

That’s the summary of Ekl’s motion to hold McQueen in “criminal contempt.”

That same motion is aimed at Quest Consultants International employees Robert Scigalski and Patrick Hanretty.

McQueen and the Quest investigators are accused of basing the second criminal indictment on “false and manufactured evidence.”

During that second trial both Scigalski and Hanretty are said to have “knowingly” perjured themselves.  McQueen is said to have known about the false testimony, but not having revealed that to the Judge.

After being victorious over McQueen and Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan, Bianchi filed a Federal civil rights suit against both last January.

The result was the uncovering of 17,000 documents, mainly emails about the case.

The list of specific reasons McQueen should be held in contempt reference various motions and court orders for discovery.

Notes on an interview with former First Assistant State’s Attorney Tom Carroll was cited as not having been turned over to the defense.

Information that could be considered “exculpatory” included a statement from Carroll that he “knew of no situation where county monies were spent by Bianchi for private or political purposes.”

McQueen replied to Scigalski, “Disappointing; is he a defense plant?”

= = = = =

More tomorrow.

This is the fifth and final installment of Lou Bianchi’s attorney Terry Ekl’s 49-page First Amended Complaint in the Federal Court suit the McHenry County State’s Attorney and his employees who were indicted in case with insufficient evidence brought against Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan and Thomas McQueen, plus Quest Consultants International and others.

Outlined are counts claiming

• Malicious prosecution and conspiracy in the first prosecution of Lou Bianchi and his assistant Joyce Synek
• Malicious prosecution and conspiracy in the second trial of Lou Bianchi and his investigator Ron Salgado
• Malicious prosecution and conspiracy in the trial of investigator Michael McCleary
• Intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy with regard to
  • Lou Bianchi
  • Joyce Synek
  • Ron Salgado
  • Michael McCleary
• Defamation and conspiracy against the four

COUNT VIII

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

170. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce A. Synek reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 170 of this Count VIII.

171. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

172. At all relevant times, the Defendants were acting under color of law as special state’s attorneys and special investigators to the special state’s attorneys.

173. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

174. As set forth above, and in furtherance of said agreement, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

175. As set forth above, the criminal charges initiated by Defendants Tonigan, 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.

176. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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

177. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Ronald J. Salgado reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 177 of this Count IX.

178. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

179. At all relevant times, the Defendants were acting under color of law as special state’s attorneys and special investigators to the special state’s attorneys.

180. At all relevant times, Defendants, Tonigan, 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.

181. As set forth above, and in furtherance of said agreement, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

182. As set forth above, the additional criminal charges initiated by Defendants Tonigan, 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.

183. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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

184. Plaintiff Michael McCleary realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 184 of this Count X.

185. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

186. At all relevant times, the Defendants were acting under color of law as special state’s attorneys and special investigators to the special state’s attorneys.

187. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

188. As set forth above, and in furtherance of said agreement, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

189. As set forth above, the criminal charges initiated by Defendants Tonigan, 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

190. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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)

191. Plaintiff Louis A. Bianchi realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 191 of this Count XI.

192. Defendants Tonigan, 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.

193. In furtherance of said agreement, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

194. 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.

195. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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)

196. Plaintiff Joyce A. Synek realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 196 of this Count XII.

197. Defendants Tonigan, 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.

198. In furtherance of said agreement, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

199. 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.

200. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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)

201. Plaintiff Ronald J. Salgado realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 201 of this Count XIII.

202. Defendants Tonigan, 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.

203. In furtherance of said agreement, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

204. 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.

205. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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)

206. Plaintiff Michael McCleary realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 206 of this Count XIV.

207. Defendants Tonigan, 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.

208. In furtherance of said agreement, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

209. 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.

210. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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)

211. Plaintiffs Louis Bianchi, Ronald Salgado, and Michael McCleary reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 211 of this Count XV.

212. As set forth more fully above in paragraphs 103 and 104, Defendants Tonigan and McQueen individually and/or in concert with each other made false statements against Plaintiffs.

213. Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, and Kelleher & Buckley caused these statements to be widely published in the media.

214. Defendants Tonigan and McQueen made the aforesaid statements with malice, knowing they were false.

215. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, and Kelleher & Buckley 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 Defendants, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, and Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, jointly and severally, 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, (630) 654-0150 Facsimile
tekl@eklwilliams.com, pprovenzale@eklwilliams.com, tstanker@eklwilliams.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

We are moving on to Part 4–roughly pages 30-40–of Lou Bianchi attorney Terry Ekl’s First Amended Complaint against Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan and Thomas McQueen, their investigative firm Quest Consultants International and others.

From the title above paragraph 124, one can see that Elk is searching for “Other Unnamed Individuals.”

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

124. 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.

125. 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.

126. Once the Defendant Quest investigators were hired by Defendant Kelleher and Buckley 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.

127. Defendants 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.

128. 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.

129. 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.

COUNT I

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

130. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce Synek reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 130 of this Count I.

131. 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.

132. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

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

134. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

135. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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 II

42 U.S.C. §1983

FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION–FALSE ARREST (CONSPIRACY) SECOND ARREST OF BIANCHI AND SALGADO’S ARREST

136. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Ronald J. Salgado reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 136 of this Count II.

137. 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.

138. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

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

140. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

141. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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

142. Plaintiff Michael J. McCleary realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 142 of this Count III.

143. 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.

144. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, McQueen, 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.

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

146. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

147. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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

148. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce Synek reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 148 of this Count IV.

149. 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.

150. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

151. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Tonigan, 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 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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

153. Plaintiff Louis A. Bianchi realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 153 of this Count V.

154. At all times relevant hereunder, Bianchi 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 Plaintiff.

155. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, 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 attempted to secure the wrongful conviction of Bianchi by fabricating witness statements, manufacturing evidence, suppressing exculpatory evidence, continuing to conceal their wrongdoing from Bianchi and his attorneys during the criminal proceedings.

156. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

157. Defendants’ individual acts and conspiracy as described above violated Bianchi’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 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, Louis A. Bianchi demands judgment against the Defendants, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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 VI

42 U.S.C. § 1983
FIRST AMENDMENT–RETALIATORY PROSECUTION (CONSPIRACY) FIRST PROSECUTION OF BIANCHI AND SYNEK

158. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce A. Synek reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 158 of this  Count VI.

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

160. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, 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 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.

161. 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.

162. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

163. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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

164. Plaintiffs Louis A. Bianchi, Ronald J. Salgado, and Michael J. McCleary reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 129 above as paragraph 164 of this Count VII.

165. 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.

166. At all relevant times, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

167. 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.

168. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Tonigan, 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.

169. 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, Henry C. Tonigan, III, Thomas K. McQueen, Kelleher & Buckley, LLC, 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.

Tomorrow we move onto “COUNT VIII – STATE LAW CLAIM–MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY, FIRST PROSECUTION OF BIANCHI AND SYNEK.”

Here is the third installment of the posting of attorney Terry Ekl’s First Amended Complaint against Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan, his assistant Thomas McQueen, Quest Consultants International, et al.  Here are Part 1 and Part 2.

Tonigan settled with Bianchi, et al, for $157,500.

Today we start with paragraph 83.

The Conspiracy to Force Bianchi From Office Continues

83. 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.

84. 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:

1. that Bianchi directed an ASA to reduce a plea offer to Ronald Salgado’s nephew (Jeremy Reid) from five to four years;
2. 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
3. that Bianchi interceded in the case of a defendant (Tom Salvi), who was related to a financial supporter of Bianchi.

85. 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.

86. 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.

87. In regards to the second investigation, Defendants McQueen and/or Tongian, along with Defendant 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.

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

89. 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.

90. The interviews conducted by Defendants Scigalskiand 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.

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

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

1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. 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;
5. 

   Sue Serdar

   With the knowledge of Defendants 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;

6. 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
7. 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.

93. Defendant Tonigan either participated in the agreement to manufacture and fabricate the false inculpatory evidence and conceal exculpatory evidence identified in paragraph 92, or that Defendant Tonigan was unaware that the evidence had been manufactured and fabricated and he unknowingly relied upon the false inculpatory evidence created by Defendant Quest Investigators and/or Defendant McQueen in ultimately deciding to charge Bianchi and Salgado.

94. Based on the fabricated inculpatory evidence and exculpatory evidence described in
paragraph 92(a-g) above, there was 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.

95. 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 Defendant McQueen, were not in fact authorized or issued by the special grand jury, in violation of Illinois law.

96. 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.

97. 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:

1. Defendant McQueen 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;
2. Defendant McQueen 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;
3. 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;
4. Defendants McQueen and Scigalski 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;
5. Defendants failed to advise the special grand jury that Jeremy Reid was not Ronald Salgado’s nephew or otherwise related to Salgado;
6. Defendants failed to advise the special grand jury that Michael Morzos was not related to Bianchi; and
7. 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

98. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that Defendant Tonigan was responsible for determining what charges to bring against Bianchi and Salgado.

Defendant Tonigan either

• deliberately ignored the fact that the charges were not supported by probable cause or,
• Defendant Tongian, in making his charging decisions, unknowingly relied upon the false and manufactured evidence and witness statements created by Defendant Quest Investigators and/or Defendant McQueen during the investigation.

99. 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.

100. On February 24, 2011, the special grand jury also returned an inictment 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.

101. 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. Scigalski and Hanretty.

102. 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.

103. 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.

104. 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.

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

106. In relation to their investigation of McCleary, Defendants McQueen 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.

107. On February 24, 2011, Defendant McQueen 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.

108. 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.

109. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, there likely will be evidentiary support that Defendant Tonigan was responsible for determining what charges to bring against McCleary.

Defendant Tonigan either

• deliberately ignored the fact that the charges were not supported by probable cause or,
• Defendant Tongian, in making his charging decisions, unknowingly relied upon the false and manufactured evidence and witness statements created by Defendant Quest Investigators and/or Defendant McQueen during the investigation.

110. 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.

111. 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

112. 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.

113. 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:

1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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; andDefendant McQueen falsely stated that Bianchi instructed an ASA to give his nephew a recognizance bond on a criminal matter.

114. 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

115. In furtherance of the conspiracy to prosecute and convict Bianchi, Salgado, and McCleary for crimes they did not commit, Defendants 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.

116. 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.

117. 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.

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

119. 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.

120. 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.

121. 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.

122. 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.

123. 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.

Tomorrow:  “The Conspiracy Between The Special Prosecutors, Quest Investigators, and Other Unnamed Individuals Was Driven By Political and Financial Motivations.”