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.”

This non-lawyer thought the recent U.S. Supreme Court case about how prosecutors have immunity would result in the tossing of the case against Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan & Thomas McQueen (plus Quest, their investigatory firm).

Brought by Terry Ekl on behalf of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi and others charged improperly (all charges not withdrawn ended up in directed verdicts), the case was not killed off by that decision.

Evidence of that is the $157,500 settlement agreement you see below:

Will one or more of McHenry County Blog’s attorney readers tell us non-lawyers what the implications of such a settlement could be on the remaining defendants?

McHenry County Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz looked a bit like a cat that had swallowed the canary after the Monday hearing on Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell’s motion for sanctions.

Judge Thomas Meyer suggested Caldwell might want to go talk to his client and told Horwitz he didn’t have to file a brief.

You can read Monday’s article here.

Now I learn that his reticence was well-placed.

The County Board is backing off on its attempts to get paid for Special Prosecutor Caldwell and the time Assistant State’s Attorneys spent on the case.

Filing of the motion was authorized by County Board Chairman Ken Koehler. I have found no other County Board member who was consulted prior to the decision. Indeed several expressed outright surprise at not being consulted.

Seipler’s effort to get a Special Prosecutor named to investigate whether Sheriff Keith Nygren used taxpayer money to advance his re-election effort was filed shortly before Seipler lost the GOP primary election to Nygren.

Although McHenry County Board Chairman Ken Koehler seems to have made the decision on his own to seek sanctions against Zane Seipler and his attorney Blake Horwitz for seeking a Special Prosecutor to probe whether Sheriff Keith Nygren used tax dollars to promote his campaign, others on the Board might have some input as to whether to continue the case.

There was precious little time spent in Judge Thomas Meyer’s courtroom Monday.

Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell appeared on behalf of the County.

“My request is that you deny the motion,” Horwitz said. (The motion can be read here.)

“I’m going to pass. We’ll come back to it,” was the only comment I heard from Judge Meyer the first time around.

Horwitz and Caldwell went outside.

Maybe a half an hour later the two attorney’s against approached the bench with what appeared to be an agreed motion.

Explaining it, Caldwell said, “[It was Judge Meyer's] suggestion that I’m going to take it to the County.”

The First Electric Newspaper’s Pete Gonigam, the one who discovered that Koehler authorized the sanctions motion, asked if Caldwell were going to talk to Koehler.

“I’m going to talk to a bunch of people,” he replied.

Horwitz summarized what he told the Judge:

“The motion does not have merit. I’d like the court to dismiss it on its face.”

He added that Judge Meyer said, “You don’t need to file a response. We’ll be back here in two weeks.

He was referring to July 10th.

In the courtroom was Sheriff’s Deputy Zane Seipler, who ran against Nygren for the GOP nomination for Sheriff two years ago. The suit seeking a special prosecutor was filed shortly before the February primary election.

Judge Meyer refused to approve a Special Prosecutor. (See “Sheriff Keith Nygren Off the Special Prosecutor Hook, State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi Given Permission to Fish.”

Monday was one of his days off from working the night shift patrol.

You’ve heard of Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell’s motion seeking to have Zane Seipler and his attorney Blake Horwitz pay for the cost of defending McHenry County in Zane Seipler’s case seeking a Special Prosecutor to investigate Sheriff Keith Nygren, right?

I thought you might be interested in reading the entire motion, so I have reproduced it below:

STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
COUNTY OF McHENRY )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 22nd JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
ex rel. ZANE SEIPLER, Petitioner,

vs.

COUNTY OF McHENRY, Intervenor.

No. 10 MR 11

COUNTY OF MCHENRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

The COUNTY OF McHENRY, by Caldwell, Berner & Caldwell, LLP, (CBC) its attorneys, Petitions the Court for the entry of sanctions against both the Petitioner Zane Seipler and his attorney, Blake Horowitz, pursuant to Supreme County Rule 137, and in support of said Motion for Sanctions alleges as follows:

1. Prior to the appearance of CBC, the County was represented by the McHenry County State’s Attorney and the County is requesting that a sanction be entered for the time expended by the County’s State’s Attorneys in responding to the five Petitions that have been filed.

2. Supreme Court Rule 137 provides, in part, as follows:
“. . . The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. . .”

3. Seipler began this request for the appointment of a special prosecutor on January 13, 2010 based upon a six-paragraph Petition and an attached Affidavit of Zane Seipler.

4. The allegations in the original Petition were that the Sheriff had performed political activity while on duty and directed his deputies to perform political activities while on duty.

5. On December 27, 2010, Seipler filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Supplement the Third Amended Petition to appoint a special prosecutor.

6. That Motion alleged that the record should be supplemented based upon the testimony of Deputy Scott Milliman alleging that Sheriff Nygren engaged in the solicitation of murder, trafficked illegal aliens from Mexico, covered up racial profiling, and participated in a payoff scheme with members of the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s office.

7. Attached hereto [see above] and made a part hereof as Exhibit 1 is copy of correspondence between Angela L. Byers, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI, on behalf of Robert D. Grant, the Agent in Charge, to Undersheriff Andrew Zinke indicating that the information provided by Deputy Milliman did not have “prosecutive merit.”

8. The Exhibits of the original Petition indicated that Seipler was referred to the Attorney General’s office or the State Board of Election by Assistant State’s Attorney Thomas Carroll on November 3, 2009. That Petition also contains a copy of a letter from Diane L. Salton, Executive Inspector General of the Office of the Attorney General, indicating that their allegations did not fit within the scope of their jurisdiction, and that she was referring it to the Public Integrity Division.

9. Attached to the original Petition was the October 1, 2009 correspondence to Zane Seipler from the State Board of Elections, Daniel White, Executive Director, indicating that although the allegations were made to them, they were referring it to their General Counsel Steve Sandvoss, for review.

10. Seipler’s multiple Petitions, including the Fifth Amended Petition, made the following allegations. The bracketed number in front of each of the following paragraphs reflects the number in the Petition. Below it is the County’s corresponding answer.

[3.] In approximately 2004, Keith Nygren created a seven star LOGO.

County’s Answer: The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 3; for further answer, the County states that the seven star logo has been used by multiple agencies across the country and is not a creation of Sheriff Nygren.

[4.] There is an official logo of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department – a five point star – which has been used by the Sheriff’s Department for over 20 years.

County’s Answer:
The County admits that the Sheriff’s office has used a five point star, but denies that it is the official logo; the County admits that the Sheriff’s Department has used that logo for many years but has insufficient information to form a conclusion as to the exact period of time that it has been used and therefore demands strict proof thereof.

[5.] Mr. Nygren created the LOGO on a computer.

County’s Answer:
The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 5.

[9]. In 2004, Mr. Nygren intentionally created the LOGO to be used for his political campaign.

County’s Answer:
The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 9.

[10.] Mr. Nygren intended to create the LOGO to forward his political campaign, meaning, to assist him in winning the election for McHenry County Sheriff.

County’s Answer:
The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 10

[23.] The LOGO was placed on the Interior Wall pursuant to the order of Sheriff Nygren.

County’s Answer:
The County admits the logo is on the Interior Wall, but denies the balance of the allegations.

[26.] Mr. Nygren desired to have the LOGO affixed to the Interior Wall and Vehicles, so as to support his political campaign. It was the intention and desire of Mr. Nygren to cause the LOGO to be intermingled with the official LOGO of the Sheriff’s Department, so as to:
a. cause McHenry County budget to pay for campaign paraphernalia. . . .

County’s Answer:
The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 26 and subparagraph(s) “a”.

[27.] Keith Nygren has requested that the LOGO be placed on McHenry County Official stationary.

County’s Answer:
The County admits the allegation contained in paragraph 27.

[28.] The LOGO has been placed on official McHenry County stationary.

County’s Answer:
The County admits the allegation contained in paragraph 28.

[32.] The Sheriff intentionally caused a LOGO that he created exclusively for his political campaign to be associated with and affixed to official property, paid for by the taxpayers, therefore allowing his own campaign to be promoted using McHenry County tax dollars.

County’s Answer:
The County denies the allegation contained in paragraph 32.

11. The County has been informed and therefore believes that there has never been an “official” star of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department.

12. The County has been informed and therefore believes that on occasions prior to the election of Sheriff Nygren the Sheriff’s office has used seven-point stars.

13. That the San Jose Police Department has been using a seven-point star since the late 1800s and that they have been exclusively using the seven-point star from the 1900s to 1976, as indicated in the attached Exhibit 2.

14. That the County is informed and therefore believes that the seven-point star, and various versions thereof, have been used by multiple police departments for over 100 years prior to the allegations of the Fifth Amended Petition.

15. The signatures of the Petitioner Zane Seipler and Attorney Blake Horowitz on the Petition constitutes a certificate that to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, that the allegations about the five-point star and seven-point star are well-grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or good faith argument for the extension, modification and reversal of existing law; that the allegations are not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

16. The County believes that the Fifth Amended Petition was done solely for the purpose of harassing the Sheriff and the County. The following facts were well known prior to proceeding with the Fifth Amended Petition:
(a) The seven-point star has been a part of the public domain for over 100 years.
(b) That the five-point star was never an “official LOGO of the County.”
(c) That the Sheriff is vested with the absolute right to determine how his office is demonstrated to the County.
(d) That the argument concerning the five-point and seven-point star is solely a political argument interposed for the purpose of harassing the Sheriff.
(e) That the allegation that this is theft was without merit.
(f) That in the process of pursuing the appointment of a special prosecutor, Zane Seipler and his attorney have been advised that Milliman’s allegations had no prosecutive merit, and that they should submit their claims to offices other than the State’s Attorney.
(g) Plaintiff’s allegations have been reviewed by multiple governmental agencies and agents. They include the F.B.I., the Attorney General’s Office, the State Board of Elections, First Assistant State’s Attorney Thomas Carroll and State’s Attorney Donald Leist. All of those agencies have indicated that there is no prosecutorial merit to their allegations.

WHEREFORE, the COUNTY OF McHENRY prays that an Order be entered holding that the Petitioner SANE SEIPLER and his attorney, BLAKE HOROWITZ, have violated Supreme Court Rule 137 and that as sanctions for violating that Rule, that the County have and recover its attorney’s fees and costs.

Caldwell, Berner & Caldwell, LLP,
Attorneys for the County of McHenry, Intervenor,

By:
William I. Caldwell

William I. Caldwell Att Reg No: 0369381
Caldwell, Berner & Caldwell, LLP
100½ Cass Street, Woodstock IL 60098
Bus: 815-338-3300, Fax: 815-338-0015

An email from Mike Tryon about the next-to-the-last week in Springfield:

Key legislation was debated and voted on last week in the General Assembly. Here is an update of some of the more noteworthy items:

Bill to Curb use of Special Prosecutors Heads to Governor

After receiving unanimous support in the Illinois House in March, legislation that would put strict guidelines in place for judges who wish to appoint special prosecutors to investigate elected officials gained unanimous Senate support last week.

I was a sponsor of this bill.

House Bill 4797 was filed in response to the excessive bills associated with an investigation of McHenry County States Attorney Lou Bianchi, who was eventually acquitted on all charges.

To date, the taxpayers of McHenry County have had to pay more than $525,000 in special prosecutor costs.

According to the bill, before a judge can appoint a special prosecutor, he/she must first exhaust all efforts to find a state’s attorney from

• another county or
• the Illinois Attorney General to do the work.

If it is determined that a special prosecutor must be hired, the bill includes language that gives county boards a voice in discussions regarding costs and the right to see itemized bills.

House Approves Massive Medicaid Reforms

Historic Medicaid reforms – a key component to fixing the State’s budget crisis, were also approved last week.

While difficult, I supported the reforms.

Without meaningful Medicaid reforms, Illinois’ backlog of unpaid bills would grow to approximately $21 billion by 2017, a level of spending that is simply unsustainable.

The General Assembly’s action to cut nearly $1.6 billion from the State’s $11 billion Medicaid program will go far in helping get Illinois back on solid fiscal ground.

With passage of Senate Bill 2840, an estimated 300,000 individuals are expected to be removed from Illinois’ Medicaid rolls because they

• do not meet income eligibility guidelines,
• are not Illinois residents,
• have died, or
• have aged-out of the All Kids program.

This eligibility verification alone will save taxpayers $350 million.

The bill also provides for a moderate rate reduction for hospitals of 3.5% and exempts Critical Access and Safety Net Hospitals from the reduction.

In addition, Senate Bill 2840 will do the following:

1. Roll back the Blagojevich expansion of Family Care by reducing the eligibility limit for parents to $30,000 for a family of four
2. Impose a $10 co-pay for emergency room visits
3. Require a $3.60 co-pay on all services and a $2 co-pay for generic medications
4. Limit prescription coverage to four prescriptions per month without doctor certification of need or specialty drug/condition exception
5. Eliminate funding for adult chiropractic services

Shortly after the House approval of SB 2840, the Senate also approved the bill. It awaits final action by the Governor.  [For who voted how, see here.  Democrat Jack Franks did not support the bill.]

Cigarette Tax Approved

Last week the House also voted to increase the cigarette tax in Illinois. Under current law, the State charges a tax on cigarettes that is equivalent to 98 cents per pack of 20.

Senate Bill 2194 would raise the cigarette tax to $1.98 per pack.

The additional revenue raised by this tax, an estimated $350 million per year, would garner a federal match, bringing in a total of $700 million for the State’s financially stretched Medicaid program.

SB 2194 also contains language intended to create a financial incentive for Illinois hospitals and hospital-affiliated health care facilities to provide charity health care to low-income and underserved Illinois residents.

SB 2194 was approved by the House by a vote of 60-52-0 and awaits action in the Senate.

I voted against this bill because I can not and will not support any additional taxes on the people of Illinois.

The key to getting Illinois’ finances in order involves making difficult decisions; not simply creating more revenue sources.

Gambling Expansion Approved

With many providers waiting months to be paid by the State, and painful cuts being imposed on Medicaid, many other State programs, and on the State’s own workforce, the House passed legislation this week for a new round of licenses to conduct gambling within a variety of Illinois venues.

Senate Bill 1849, as amended, would direct the State to award five additional licenses to operate riverboat casinos at specified locations throughout Illinois.

The bill would also authorize a Chicago casino and the operation of slot machines at Illinois racetracks.

SB 1849 would raise estimated gaming tax revenue of $200 million a year, with additional one-time revenues through the awarding of the additional gaming licenses.

The bill would also provide funding for many agricultural programs and the State Fairgrounds.

The House passed SB 1849 on Wednesday by a vote of 69-47-2; the bill is currently awaiting a concurrence vote in the Senate.

Governor Pat Quinn has indicated that he does not support the proposal.

I voted against the bill, and while I am not opposed to a MODEST expansion of gambling, I feel strongly that revenues from any expansion need to be earmarked, at least in part, toward a pension stabilization fund.

General Assembly Works Through the Weekend

The General Assembly worked through the weekend and is also in session today. As your Representative, I am committed to staying in Springfield as long as it takes to make the required decisions that will lead us to a balanced budget for fiscal year 2013. I will continue to update you as other important pieces of legislation move through the process.

Remember our Military Today on Memorial Day

Lastly, as you gather with friends and family to celebrate this Memorial Day, please keep in your heart the brave men and women who have served in uniform and given their lives in service to our country. All of these heroes are deserving of our utmost respect today, and every day.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Tryon
State Representative, District 64

I don’t know whether “Smooth Operator” is an attorney or not, but the comments posted below the story

McHenry County Suit against Zane Seipler Seeks British Solution

Let’s ferret out how a this lawsuit would theoretically work and progress.

Filing. Haven’t seen any hard evidence reported that anything was filed or who actually said that a suit was imminent.

Then we will have Horwitz motion to dismiss, which will probably be a winner. Unless of course the judge is on the take so I would imagine that Horwitz will be screening every McHenry County judge and finding reasons for removal.

If it were to proceed, discovery would take place. I would suspect there are law enforcement officials that would testify that the use of the stars are worthy of investigation. Judge hears that, case dismissed.

Depositions would be taken. Bianchi would be required to evaluate the evidence and decide if the allegations have merit. He won’t be able to hide behind his attorney client excuse. If he goes under oath and says they have no merit then he could be in grave trouble for his role in the original trial and not just telling Judge Meyer this to begin with.

More depositions of political activist in this county that may be influencing the ins and outs of this situation.

Nygren will be brought in to explain his use of the stars and why he thought it was OK to do what he has done.

Leist and Caldwell will have to justify their expenses and every phone call, email, and communication will be inventoried and examined.

Leist will have to answer questions regarding his new position as the EEO.

These are just some of things I would expect from the “defendants” Seipler and Horwitz.

The other possible action is that the County asks for sanctions from Judge Meyer. That request will be denied. Meyer would not make such a ruling and consider the case frivolous after all that he allowed to go on.

Then there would be the appeals if Seipler were to lose.

It would cost the county a tremendous amount of money to go down this path.

This would also bring into question, who is paying the attorney fees for the “frivolous” appeals Nygren made regarding Seipler’s employment.

Cans of worms are poised to explode.

Just for fun I looked at the headlines of publications that wrote stories on Judge Thomas Meyer’s denial of Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s request for a Special Prosecutor to investigation criminal allegations against McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren.

On the day of the decision this was the Northwest Herald‘s:

In another story, the online headline on the NWH was

The NWH’s Kevin Lyons wrote a column entitled,

The Daily Herald‘s:

A revision of the DH story resulted in the following headline:

From the Chicago Tribune:

And, McHenry County Blog‘s:

Woodstock Advocate wrote:

The First Electric Newspaper had this headline: