Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
.- -:-_Lliu-1'/
) Steven A. Greenberg, individually a n d ) and d/b/a Steven A. Greenberg ) Associates, Ltd. r dD Illinois ) G r e e n b e r g , A . Steven Corporation, ) Ltd., a Dj-ssolved Il-linois G r e e n b e r g ) A . S t e v e n Corporation, ) and Associates, Ltd., an Illinois a ) ComPanY, Tribune Corporation, S t . ) Foriegn CorPoration, StacY ) and as an individuallY Clair, Tribune ) of agent and emPloyee ) a Delaware Company, AOL, Inc., t h e P a t c h , ) A O L d / b / a Corporation, ) Patch, the Patch.com' the Joliet P a t c h P a t c h , ) S h o r e w o o d a n d Patch ) a Delaware Media Corporation, ) Corporat ion d/b/ a the Patch, and a n d ) Joseph Hosey, individuallY, of the Patch, ) as agent and editor the Shorewood) a n d P a t c h the Joliet ) Patch,
Defendants. COMPI,AINT ) )
CASE NO. T .: =E i_:',i : i-:"$ L . b'e:- "'' ;j:" ;;i..l{i* !DEMANDED TRIAL JURY
tr.' (]3
il5 *n
fft
'a r gl
{
.y? "r
#r'
r-l-**
1'r
I
F"*l i**"1
Fr!
:5i
'.,.,;r
ti
f^)
{",u"i
Joel
A.
Brodsky, of
by his
Greenberg, Associates, A.
Greenberg
steven A.
Greenberg, A.
Steven
and
Tribune Cl-air,
employee,
agent
of
Delaware Patch.com,
d/b/a Patch
AoL and
Patch,
the
the Patch
shorewood
Corporation and as
d/b/a
Patch, of and
agent
and editor
,Joliet
alleges
as .fol-lows: (DefamatJ-on Against COUNT I the Greenberg Defendants) relevant, to of be Joel an to Joel A' attorney practice A. Brodsky Brodsky duly l-aw in
1.
At
times
(..Brodsky,, ) licensed by
continues
Illinois of
Law Office
relevant, continues of to
steven be an to
A.
attorney practice
Illinois
business A.
Steven
Illinois.
sometimes referred
Greenberg Defendants". 3. owner, of At director all times relevant, alter Greenberg 9o, Ltd. the Tribune did Company, business a in of agent was the sole
and dominant
and employee
Foriegn
(the Illinois
Co.") owner
and publisher
Chicago
a Newspaper having
a worLd-wide
and Internet
ci-rculation.
At was
all
times
St. as
Clair a
(*St.
employed of the
reporter, with
employee of
Tribune
publication
Chi-cago Co.
Illinois are
and internationally.
Tribune
hereinafter
sometimes referred
aS "the
Tribune 6.
a retj-red County
an years
extremely of
criminal media of
case
ongoing
Peterson first
charge
degree
third "Savio
Kathleen
Savio
Murder Trial"),
and found
disregard
that,
statements
therein
fal-se to
i-ncluding a
Clair
Co., of
substantially
which
Greenberg's and
Letter,
is
substantially of a for
comprlsed as
designed termj-nate
revenge
one
of
Peterson's
attorneys and
Greenberg's
incompetence'
unpreparedness,
of
attention to avoid
during any
the
trial
of
the
savio and
murder blame a
and
personal against
responsl-bility
the
guilty illness
verdict
because of
mental bear in
he suffers
by his
the
criminala career
assist
his
plan
letter
contains
following
falsely
e. ) f .)
legal
q.)
j-nterest conduct'
and engaging
acting
maliciously a
caused to In
be filed of and
"Memorandum Confl-ict of
Support
Concerning of
Interest
the
Memorandum Greenberg
distributed
published
said
Memorandum to including
various but
sundry
the and
limited
Tribune
knowing that as
false,
scurrilous,
attached
hereto
and were
without
benefit
Greenberg's it was
proceeding, the
Greenberg
Defendants
entirety, of
compellation The
false,
and falsely
defamatory accused
Greenberg
memo contains
being inept
j-neffective,
incompetent
and
b.) c. ) d. )
misrepresenting routinely
breaching
reveaL
e. )
own self-interest
to
the
detriment
f. )
privileged had barred court introduci-ng, Peterson soliciting gain as a significant misrepresenting to Peterson, his
g. )
h. )
r.
j.)
contract j-nterest,
thereby and
creating
k. )
interest and of otherwise having conflicts conduct. engaging in unprofessional and unethical When the Greenberg Letter Defendants and Memo they distributed knew or and shoul-d
1,2. published
Greenberg's
have know they the Internet 13. Letter The and for
and posted
onl-ine on
public Memo,
contained
concerning that he
Brodsky, had
descrj-bed,
depicted and
imputed
engaged
unethical
behavior
and inept,
misconduct
incompetent,
dj-shonest, the
unprofessional-
thereby
imputing to him.
Greenberg lead
defame
discredit (the to
resented, in order
for
said
and to
attempt to
responsibility Greenberg to
allowed after
defense
Greenberg allow
lobbied
begged One
Peterson's
reasons
for
this
eliminate to and
Brodsky's
chances
render him
media in this
commentary legaI
and
competition long-time
market with
attorney-cl-ient
relationship
Peterson.
...-t
Further, his
Greenberg
often
stated
to
and and
dream of on
"talking
commentator TV or while
other talk on
Cable hanging
outlets.
TruTV media
during the
where were
he could on the
trial,
breaks
dj-scussing
strategy L6.
Greenberg's
commentator Savio
Murder Trial-,
Brodsky hatred
remarks prominent
regarding, Chicago
attorney
Karen
a commentator as
FOX NEWS CHICAGO, as he saw her get that Greenberg position. Memo acting cli-ent, to was as but directed an
to
Greenberg best
was interest
thus of
not. his
attorney
attempt Murder
up his promote
Savio
Trial-,
vengeance will
against
Brodsky
he resented, because he
be detailed
below) known as
from
mental- illness
narcj-ssism. of
(DSMIV TR 301-.81) said mental illness ruining Greenberg Brodsky's things, by he the
Because fixated
Brodsky mental he
during him
Savio believe
IS his and
illness was
onJ-y he,
alone'
to,
and praise
j-l-lness, which
ignore
a. ) prevented segment on
Greenberg
on a daily "Greenberg it
trial
known as because
Karas" away
TruTv's
program also
(which
developed b. )
for
himsel-f) , during to
prevented trialto
traveling Piers
New York
the be
Morgan
c. ) time
even
were on the
stand,
instead d. ), the
publically
disclosed of
was unprepared
witnesses e. )
objections
during
and/or Peterson
attempted team
defense
because
Greenberg's depriving
unpreparedness, in life
thereby
one thing
he wanted,
people
to
pay
to him. Because he was not and be because acting j-n the best mental with interest of
ill-nesses he
Brodsky, and
convinced obtain a
quickest conviction
easiest
resulting
from
Savio
Murder
Trlal
was
to of
fal-se against of
and
il1-
Peterson rest
facing life
l-ikerihood prison, he
the
agreed on
allegations
against
Brodsky advice
based
Greenberg, s
allegations calling
things, to
Attorney
("Smith" ) stated the truth defense witness day prior mental wrong, that
Trial- .
Greenberg
cal-l
himself and
others. members of be
other
peterson's as a the
smlth
shoul-d
called
defense on three
(3) separate
occasions
Because Greenberg's that there he can never were two be (2) and
illness he
ignored
independent heard
wi-tnesses,
attorneys, smith
shourd
when smith
was called,
On information st.
leaked
her
news stories
concerning him
savio
case,
promoted his
articles
which herself
pathologicalinto
narcissism, de st. of
Tribune said in
Greenberg's between
agreement his
Dugan in
widely
reported
information leaked
Tribune 20L0
sealed was no
hearing
decision to
after
joined
defense the
Clair's
promoti-on
Greenberg. in the
privileged discovery
Savio
Murder child
the
Nacarrico had.
reporter to the
al-lfalse
relevant
defamatory in to
statements his
Brodsky and
community of
deny all
said
false
untrue
accusati-ons As
proximate
malicious, statements
fa1se, made
he had engaged in
dishonest held
conduct
be wrongly
scorn,
contempt,
anguish, to his
anxiety, honor,
dignity, and
name,
professj-on and
falsely
stigmatized with
rel-ationship clients
Peterson, in the
prospective
and peers
judgment
Greenberg and
Defendants, punitlve
severally,
compensatory 10
damages in
great and
of
fifty
dollars relief
( $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 )'
costs, and
other
as may be just
proper
the premises. C O U N TI I (Fa1se Light in Public EYe Against the Greenberg Defendants)
I-25.
Count fully I
Brodsky
realleges 1 through
paragraphs 25 of this
1 though Count II
25 of as if
stated 26 . At
rel-evant, known or
the
Greenberg that be
knew false
or
should
recognized could oI
statements
were made it
would
cause harm to the Brodsky's 27. law That said in a false false
public be
causi-ng result
direct
pecuniary
suffered profits.
disparagement light in to
including which
lost the
The false
was placed
a reasonable Defendants
jointly caused
l-iable
the all-
within
the
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF in and great his favor and against for fifty
Greenberg and
Defendants, punitive
severally, excess of
compensatory
damages in costs,
($50,000.00),
and further
as may be just
and proper
C O U N TI I ] (Il-l-inois Deceptive Trade Practices Act Claim Against the Greenberg Defendants) L-25. Brodsky realleges 11 paragraphs 1 though 25 of
Count I fully
1 through
25 of
this
Count III
as if
stated 26. At
times Act
relevant, in
the relevant
lllinois part, in
Trade
Practices
provides trade
engages in of his or
practice or or of
when,
vocation, services,
di-sparages
another
fal-se or misl-eading representation 27. dates, On information and in violation and belief, of the the
Illinois
Deceptj-ve
Act,
Greenberg Defendants by to, reason would St. to be that Clai-r, know a his
communicated having
Tribune,
Brodsky, the
Internet, or
and one or
more other
actual the
substantially
above in cal-l
disregard into
question,
1ega1
ability,
skills,
said to discredit
fal-se
and
reputation deter
and dissuade
retaining
doing his
him and to
marketability
legal 29.
times
relevant,
the
Greenberg
Defendants
knew or
should
statements representations
were of
and that
T2
Brodsky's At all-
false
communications
commercially thereby by
profession loss to
pecuniary
them as to of
result
including profits,
damage loss
his will
good
Greenberg caused
Defendants will
said
deceptive to cause is
trade Brodsky
and
continue which
harm for
there
no adequate
PRAYS that
this
Court
enter
finding in a
preliminary the
prohibiting servants,
Greenberg
Defendants
agents,
employees,
offlcers,
attorneys, Brodsky
commercially
disparaged
business
and profession; l-ost profits, economic, Greenberg loss of good will, and jointly treble and
Greenberg
Defendants, E. agaj-nst
granting the
other
further
relief as
Defendants, in
jointly
and severally,
may be just
the premises.
13
COUNT IV
r-25.
Count fully I stated 26. were At
Brodsky
realleges 1 through
paragraphs 25 of this
1 though Count IV
25 of as if
relevant Brodsky to
the in
Defendants, professJ-on
respect
Peterson in at
c o f l r m o nl a w ,
Greenberg
as competitors
Brodsky to
not
disparage occupation
vocation,
on or
about
September Defendants
Greenberg
breached
Brodsky's false
reputation,
or misl-eading
Defendants to St.
communicated
sald for
false the
misleading
C1air, to
Tribune, of
knowing
having
reason would
statements,
Brodsky, the
be reported it was,
which
for the
their
competency,
and
integrity,
ability,
and services. Defendants with the made intent said to false and
statements
di-sparage
L4
Brodsky's his to
professionaL and to
in
order
discredit
reputation deter
retaining
doing
business
him
credibility
1egal services. relevant, the Greenberg that were fact harm Defendants when made, comprised and that to of they
times have
should and
known or
recognized
false or or
disparaglng
statements of
misleading woul-d be
representations likely to
cause
Brodsky's
false
misleading his
statements
commercially thereby
professj-on loss to
pecuniary
by them as his
disparagement lost
damage to of
reputation,
good will
damaqes. The Greenberg caused and Defendants wil-lcontinue which said to commercial cause is Brodsky
dJ-sparagement
damages and irreparable remedy at 34. statements his law. The Greenberg
harm for
there
no adequate
Defendant's disparaged
false Brodsky
and with
commercially
law practice,
clientele in
general suffer
resul-t of
good will
PRAYS that
this
Court
enter
flnding
disparaged him
him in l-ost
his
profession loss
awarding
profits,
compensatory,
economic, jointly
punitive and
Greenberg will-
Defendants,
proofs c.
show at trial; him costs against and and further jointly relief as the Greenberg
Defendants D. against
and severally'
may be just
(Defamation
1'-25.Brodskyre-allegesparagraphslthough25 count fully I as paragraphs herein. their by 24, defamatory st. clair accusations and the published contents also the Tribune in of the the 1 through 25 of this
stated 26.
Among
against co-' on
Brodsky, or about
as reported September
20L2, the
and on the
internet,
knowing
contents
false The
and defamatorY. Greenberg with Defendants copies of directly the provided Letter the and and
Defendants the
Greenberg
false of
accusations' other
copies and
members of nonthose
media
public the
purpose online
posted
world-wide
Internet.
T6
Among St. in
their and
accusations Co.
Clair the
reported Internet
Chicago 24,
September
2012
13,
20\2' that
for
they
published
agreement
St. be
Greenberg
so as Co. in
Tribune
sealed,
impounded and privileged Case and in and so as to with those the DuPage that and
documents
the
Savio murder
County Nicarico he
child to
assure sealed
woul-d continue
provide
impounded documents and privileged 30. Greenberg though On information Memo and knew, whether to
published had
she
recklessly it was
disregarded more
because of other
important that
available the
was for in
report the
Chicago
Clair
exclusj-ve
agreement
with
Greenberg
sealed
information.
t7
During
or
about
said were
time
and dates by
the the
pubrished
i-ncluding, and
among other
international
newspapers, radio,
tel-evision
internet
services, of which
without
dj-scovery. 32. Defendants good alr At al-lfarse times and relevant prior statements his to the Brodsky and Tribune had has a at
defamatory in to
professionaltimes denied
community the to
deny al-l- of
their
said and
accusations
and insinuations
be false
of
the
above
pl^ se
made of in
and concerni-ng
engaged so as to hatred,
incompetent,
unethj-calbe held up to
and
great
ri-dicu1e, injury to
reputat j_on,
and affairs. and for belief, the St. C1air, because properly defamatory salient and mental
and as a reporter agreement the against facts and with factuar Brodsky factors, 18
said out
Greenberg's
as or
to
whether and
t'he were or
fal-se launching to
fact,
before
their any in
del-iberate time or in to
media
attack
on him, to facts
at
Brodsky or
attempt him to
a1low with
information this
respect
sealed her
information as this
agreement her to be
with secure
Greenberg in her
allowed her
employment and advance in 35. for the The Tribune defamatory because, the
career. jointly and and vicariously damages thereby St. liable caused was
Co. is
accusations Et alltimes
Brodsky
relevant,
Clair
actj-ng withln
PLAINTIFF WHEREFORE in and great and his favor and for fifty against
judgment
Tribune and
Defendants, punitive
compensatory
($50'000'00), as may be
other
proper
the premises.
COUNT VI
Against
the
Tribune
realleges 1 through
paragraphs 35 of this
Count V as paragraphs fully stated 36. knew or were At herein. all_ times
as if
relevant,
the
should it
have could
made
Brodsky's light in
interests eye.
IY
31 Cl-air's
Pursuant article
to
her
agreement
with
St.
promoted a false
him and disparaged light in and eye the public his the law
thereby
him in By
light
caused
pecuniary lost
profits,
damages. Tribune for was at the a1I Defendants are jointly caused within and Brodsky scope
liable Clair
the
agency and employment. The and in Tribune conduct the public light Defendants cast eye. in which the Brodsky person. judgment be entered jointly was placed and foregoj-ng portrayed defamatory in a
Brodsky
The false
would be highly
offensive
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF in and great his favor and for fifty against
Tri-bune and
Defendants, punitive
severally, excess of
compensatory
damages in costs,
($50,000.00),
and further
as may be just
and proper
COUNT VII
(Illinois Deceptive Trade Practj-ces Act Claim Against the Tribune Defendants) t-25. Count I fully Brodsky re-alIeges 1 through paragraphs 25 of this 1 though 25 of as if
Count VIfI
stated 26 . At
the relevant
Illinois part, in
Trade
Practices
engages in
a deceptive
practice
when,
20
of
his
vocation, services,
or or of
disparages
On information
2OL2 and
December 13,
and Act,
in
Deceptive
Defendants an the
maliciously and
Clair, Co.,
employee,
agent
reporter
Tribune to
Greenberg of by it
Letter
reason be and
know his
statements
would
Chicago public,
Tribune
and to
one or in i-nto
other falsity,
actual with
potential intent to
cl-ients call
disregard question,
competency,
integrity,
lega1
ability'
skills,
and services. Tribune Defendants knowing that services pecuniary cl-ients to reduce made to said false and
and discredit
dissuade with
business
lega1 services. 29. knew or At all times have relevant, the Tribune said of they interests Defendants false false and or
should
disparaging mj-sleading
statements representations to
coul-d or having
cause harm to
Brodsky's
value. Clair and the Tribune Letter or Defendants to be al-l-owed the even as to
Memo and
Greenberg they
published disregard
she knew or
were false
with
2L
whether important of
or to
not her
they
were
true,
because to not
it
was
more source
and the
excl-usive reporter
information than it
to truth.
any on
other
report the
information turned
and
Trj-bune
editors it
a blind
wanted to provided
exclusj-ve with
crair sealed
agreement
Greenberg information.
and impounded documents and privileged 31. said At all times relevant, and his the
Tribune
farse
publication Brodsky in
communications
disparaged
profession loss to
Tribune caused
said
deceptive to cause is
trade Brodsky
have
continue which
harm for
there
no adequate
PRAYS that
this
Court
enter
trade
practice
plaintiffs
and profession,. a preliminary the and Tribune permanent Defendants offi_cers, injunction, and their attorneys, him in
issulng
ffiployees, from
commercially
disparaged
business C.
and profession; him l_ost profits, loss punitive of good and will, treble
awarding
general-.
compensatory,
economic,
22
damages severally, D.
against
the
Tribune will
Defendants,
jointly
and
show at trial; costs against and and further relief as the Tribune
Defendants, E.
other jointly
Defendants, in
and
severally,
the premis'es.
COUNTVIII
Against
stated 26. At
AOL,
Inc.
Patch, the of
Patch in
and
Shorewood Illinois.
"Patch"), tj-mes
relevant,
Media d/b/a
Media") of
was a Delaware Corporation f l-linois. times in in relevant the nothing was and Joliet hereto, worst more
al-l is is a
("Hosey", journalist
who and as
reality fact
journal-ist, of the
and is
edj-tor
Shorewood
(*AOL"\
owned by AOL, Inc., a Delaware AOL Patch and the 'tPatch" and the the "Patch"), al-1 collectively
to as the At all
stories Trial-
the
Internet
AOL and
Patch
Media
via
the
23
more of
the
foll-owing com
web sites,
among others:
http:patch.
http: / / j oliet.patch.
com/topics/Joe+Hosey
http: / / shorewoodiT .patch. com/topics/Joseph+Hosey http : / /bo 7 ingbrook http: / /elnhurst . patch . com
.patch . com
http : / / downe rsgrove . patch . com http : / / ch icagoheight http: / /darien-ils . patch . com
http : / / f rankfort.
http : / / geneva . patch. com http: / /orl-andpark http: / /tinLelpark .patch. com .patch. com com
http: / /algonquin.patch.
http: / /gleneTTyn .patch. com http : / /wheaton. patch . com http : / / napervi f Le. patch. com http : / / Lisle. patch. com http: / / romeoviTLe .patch. com http : / /p7a inf ie 7d .patch . com http : / / Tagrange .patch. com http: / /oakLawn.patch. http: / /evergreenpark com .patch. com
http : / / channahon-minooka . patch . com http: / /oswego .patch. com http : / /mokena . patch. com
24
/ /northbrook
h t t p : / / o a k p a r k .p a t c h . c o m 30. Patch.com platform states a On information was a local and belief, and at all times and relevant, websites
hyperlocal in
blog rl-l-inois
owned by AoL and operated withln the united states ("Patch Media
and 23 other
Hosey,
sometimes
referred
to as the "Hosey Defendants". and had published, as an objective book entitled new
In or to his
a biased
Sergieant
Untouchable" by Lifetime
("Untouchabl-e" ) services,
Entertainment
Movie Network and A&E Television On information sel1 and on (and of a and sequels regular every 2013, with day and profit thereto, basis during of belief, in
Networks, order
January
and
and AoL and Patch Media in other, reckless on the intentionally, dI-sregard Patch a for
conjunction and
maliciously to be
caused and
published
interconnected
continuous
25
series
of
fal-se
and
misleading false
stories,
false reports,
and false
misleadj-ng and
statements,
misleading the
and
misleading all of
innuendo, ( and
concerning
other be
and Patch
knew or
should
have
known to
and misleading. 33. At alltimes relevant, the Hosey Defendants false be knew
or
should
have
known that
when said or
statements harm to
could of the
would
Brodsky light in
having
a false
false a false
Brodsky
public be lost
eye thereby as a
causing result of
direct
pecuniary
suffered profits,
said
disparagement
includj-ng
loss
That the as
Defendants, type to of
journalism, on the
caused
be published series of
arti-cles
which
were
smear by in
and portray
him
light
of
this
campaign, to,
Hosey
didn't basis or
properly defamatory
accusations
26
basis
in
fact he
because
Hosey about
didn't Brodsky
care
whether or
nor not,
not as
published
smear of
scurrilous
wanted to basis of
inquiry
balanced
any relevant Hosey acted but that a bully he smear pleasure, career. The Patch, blind of to
contradictory in this
information
masquerading Ij-cense to
had a
defame,
campaign while
against,
advancing
AOL Patch,
knew, or in
the
type
yellow
journalism, and in
Patch websites
continually
can easily
defamatory
smear
campaign
Hosey
Brodsky. That liable the for all Hosey the Defendants are jointly caused the and Brodsky scope of
because Hosey was at his agency. 40 statements false light The and in Hosey
times
foregoing portrayed
defamatory Brodsky in a
27
4!.
The false
light
in to
which
the
was placed
would be highly
offensive
a reasonable a
be
jointly
severally, excess of
compensatory thousand
damages in costs,
dollars
($50,000.00),
such other
and further
rel-ief
as may be just
and proper
the premj-ses. COUNT IX (Il-l-inois Deceptive Trade Practices Act Claim Against the Hosey Defendants) I-AL. Count VIII if fu1ly 42. Trade Brodsky re-alleges paragraphs 38 of 1 though Count 4I IX of
AS
1 through
this
relevant, in
the relevant
fllinois part, in
Practices
provides trade
engages in of his or
practice or or of
when,
vocation, services,
disparages false
another
representation aforesaid,
starting
January
and with
conjunction
with
Hosey and
each
and with be
published series
conti-nuous false
stories,
statements,
misleading
reports,
misleading
quotations,
2B
and
fal-se
and
misleading all-
.'farse
and
misleading which
statements")
concerning
other
Hosey Defendants
knew or
have known to be fal-se and misr-eading. knew the Brodsky, fal-se and misleading wourd be published reported, other on
44 - The Hosey Defendants statements the it Patch was' of and concerning rnternet, and
which or
public,
actual
clients
integrity
Brodsky's services
representation,
current
him and to
marketability
services. 46. The Hosey of Defendants statements professiona] reputation deter made with said the false intent in and to order
serj-es Brodsky's
harm on him from retaining marketability 41. or said or shouLd series misreading At
business
him and to
of his al-l
lega1 services. reLevant, or the Hosey Defendants that when made, were likery knew the
times known,
have of
recognized
false and
statements woul-d be
false to
that
pecuniary relevant,
communications
Brodsky di-rect
profession loss to
pecuniary
by them as a result
29
the
disparagement rost
including profits,
damage loss of
to good
his
wil-l-
Hosey caused
deceptive to cause is
trade Brodsky
have
harm for
there
no adequate
pRAyS that
this
Court
enter
deceptive business B.
practice
and profession,a preliminary the and Hosey permanent Defendants injunction, and their
issuing and
enjoining agents, successors in his C. general, damages severally, D. jointly E. against be just
prohibiting
servants,
employees,
officers,
attorneys, Brodsky
commercially
disparaged
business
and professj-on,. him lost profits, loss punitive of good and jointly will, trebte and
awarding
Defendants,
him
such
other jointly
and
further
relief as may
Hosey Defendants, in
and severally,
and proper
the premises.
l-aintif
,hisa
Wa1ter Maksym Attorney at Law 2056 N. Li-nco1n Avenue Chicago, IL 606L4-4525 TeI: 3L2-218-4475 e-mail- : wmaksymGgmail. com Cook County Atty. No. 55061
31