More McHenry County Blog

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

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

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

THE PARTIES

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

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

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

5. Defendant Thomas K. McQueen is a resident of the Northern District of Illinois. At
all relevant times he was an attorney, appointed by the Circuit Court of McHenry County to “assist”
special prosecutor Henry C. Tonigan1, and acting under the color of law. This action is brought

6. The Defendant, Quest Consultants International, Limited (hereinafter “Quest”), at
all relevant times was an Illinois corporation doing business in the Northern District of Illinois. At
all relevant times, Quest and its employees were retained as taxpayer funded special investigators
to the special state’s attorney. As such, Quest and its employees acted under the color of law and
with the authority and power to exercise police powers and conduct criminal investigations.

7. The Defendants, Robert Scigalski, Daniel Jerger, James Reilly, Patrick Hanretty, and
Richard Stilling, at all relevant times were employees of Quest as taxpayer funded special
investigators to the special state’s attorney, and appointed by the Circuit Court of McHenry County
as agents and investigators of the special grand jury. As such, these Defendants acted under the
color of law, with the authority and power of peace officers, and within the scope of their
employment with Quest.
= = = = =
 FN1 Henry C. Tonigan is a former defendant in this case and was voluntarily dismissed by
Plaintiffs after a settlement agreement was reached.
= = = = =

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS OF THE COMPLAINT
BACKGROUND OF THE CONSPIRACY TO REMOVE BIANCHI FROM OFFICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

53. On or about September 10, 2010, based upon the false and manufactured evidence
as described above, the special grand jury returned an indictment against Bianchi, presented under
Tonigan’s authority, for Conspiracy to commit official misconduct and obstruction of justice,
nineteen (19) counts of Official Misconduct, and Unlawful Communication with a Witness (10 CF
933). None of these 21 counts were supported by probable cause or any competent evidence.
54. On September 10, 2010, based upon the false and manufactured evidence as
described above, the special grand jury returned an indictment against Synek, presented under
Tonigan’s authority, for Conspiracy to commit official misconduct and obstruction of justice, four
(4) counts of perjury, and obstruction of justice (10 CF 934). None of these counts were supported
by probable cause or any competent evidence.

55. The indictment alleged that Bianchi and Syneck conspired to commit official
misconduct and obstruction of justice. No evidence existed that there was any agreement, either
explicit or implicit, between Bianchi and Synek to commit either official misconduct or obstruction
of justice. During their investigation, Defendants McQueen and the Quest Investigators
manufactured the sole evidence used to support those charges.
56. The indictment alleged that Bianchi and Syneck conspired to commit officialagreement with Bianchi, deleted certain files after receiving a grand jury subpoena to produce those
documents. Defendants McQueen and Jerger knew, based upon their investigation, that the charge
was false and based solely on manufactured evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

84. During the course of their investigation, Defendants McQueen, Hanretty and
Scigalski manufactured and fabricated false inculpatory evidence against Bianchi and Salgado in
their reports while failing to properly document exculpatory evidence, to wit:
(a) Defendant Scigalski falsely reported that ASA Demetri Tsilimigras stated that he was
directed by Bianchi to present the victim in the Thomas Salvi case with various
alternatives to prosecution, one of which was for the victim to accept an apology and
an agreement that Thomas Salvi would undergo counseling;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

114. On August 1 , 2011, immediately prior to the commencement of trial and without any
prior notification to Bianchi, Defendant McQueen dismissed the charge against Bianchi which related
to the prosecution of Michael Morzos. On August 2, 2011, after a bench trial, Judge McGraw granted
Bianchi’s Motion for Directed Finding and acquitted Bianchi of the two remaining charges.
The Conspiracy Between McQueen, the Quest Investigators, and Other Unnamed
Individuals Was Driven By Political and Financial Motivations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Louis A. Bianchi and Ronald J. Salgado demand judgment against
the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard
Stilling, Patrick Hanretty and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for
compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00 and for his attorneys’ fees
and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
 
COUNT III
 
42 U.S.C. §1983
FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION–FALSE ARREST (CONSPIRACY)
MCCLEARY’S ARREST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Louis A. Bianchi, Ronald J. Salgado, and Michael J. McCleary
demand judgment against the Defendants, Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski,
James Reilly, Richard Stilling, Patrick Hanretty, and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly
and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00 and for
their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
 
COUNT VI
 
42 U.S.C. § 1983
FIRST AMENDMENT–RETALIATORY PROSECUTION (CONSPIRACY)
FIRST PROSECUTION OF BIANCHI AND SYNEK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Louis A. Bianchi and Joyce A. Synek, demand judgment
against the Defendants Thomas K. McQueen, Daniel Jerger, Robert Scigalski, James Reilly, Richard
Stilling, Patrick Hanretty, and Quest Consultants International, Limited, jointly and severally, for
compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $1,000,000.00.
 
COUNT IX
 
STATE LAW CLAIM–MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY
SECOND PROSECUTION OF BIANCHI AND SALGADO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COUNT X
 
STATE LAW CLAIM–MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY
MCCLEARY’S PROSECUTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

200. Plaintiffs Louis Bianchi, Ronald Salgado, and Michael McCleary reallege and
incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 above as paragraph 200 of this Count XV.

201. As set forth more fully above in paragraph 102, Defendant McQueen made false
statements against Plaintiffs.

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

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

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

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

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY OF TWELVE

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