Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 31

COUNTY'rLLrNOrs I N T H E C I R C U I T couRT OF COOK LAW DIVISION COUNTYDEPARTMENT,

Joel A. BrodskY, Plaintiff,


V.
..!j""f 'i ! ! J1,rf.i ?i JLU'".i a q.:ft3 d{u ia*uf,t L

.- -:-_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

i: ' "91 :-- .:. ^.:Ti

il5 *n
fft

]'r{l::l k '. ".r r.rl-.j'*': -:; {} -{


1i';'
\r,...j.,..

'a r gl
{

.y? "r
#r'

r-l-**
1'r
I
F"*l i**"1

Fr!

:5i

'.,.,;r

ti
f^)

{",u"i

N O W C O M E SP l a i n t i f f , walter Maksym, and

Joel

A.

Brodsky, of

by his

attorney' steven A. &

complaining and d/b/a

Defendants Steven A'

Greenberg, Associates, A.

individually Ltd. , d/b/a Ltd., a

Greenberg

steven A.

Greenberg Ltd. IlIinois Ltd', Foriegn and Co',

and Steven CorPoration, dh Illinois

Greenberg, A.

Dissolved Associates, Company, individually the Tribune a

Steven

Greenberg the St. and

and

Corporation, and St,acy

Tribune Cl-air,

Corporation' as AOL' reporter' Inc' ' a

employee,

agent

of

Delaware Patch.com,

Corporation, the Jol-iet

d/b/a Patch

AoL and

Patch,

the

Patch, Patch, the

the Patch

shorewood

Media Corporation, and Joseph the Patch, Hosey, the

a Delaware individually Patch

Corporation and as

d/b/a

Patch, of and

agent

and editor

,Joliet

and the. Shorewood Patch,

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

all was the and

times

(..Brodsky,, ) licensed by

continues

Supreme Court as the lll-inois. times and

Illinois of

and does business and about Chicago 2. At aII was the

Law Office

relevant, continues of to

steven be an to

A.

Greenberg duly 1aw Ltd.

("Greenberq") lj-censed and did and by

attorney practice

Supreme Court as Steven A. Greenberg,

Illinois

business A.

Greenberg & Associates, Ltd., a Dissol-ved

Steven

Illinois Ltd., Ltd."),

Corporation, an in are Il-linois and about hereinafter

and Steven A. Corporation, Chicago

Greenberg and Associates, (collectively "Greenberg,

Illinois.

Greenberg and Greenberg Ltd. to collectivel-y aS "the

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

Steven A. Greenberg & Associates, 4. At all times relevant, "Tribune as the

Foriegn

Corporation, Chicago Tribune

(the Illinois

Co.") owner

and about the

and publisher

Chicago

a Newspaper having

a worLd-wide

print

and Internet

ci-rculation.

5. Clair"), agent its and

At was

all

times

relevant, by the and was

Stacy acting Co. in in

St. as

Clair a

(*St.

employed of the

reporter, with

employee of

Tribune

connection and about

publication

Chicago Tribune St.

Chi-cago Co.

Illinois are

and internationally.

Cl-air and the to collectively

Tribune

hereinafter

sometimes referred

aS "the

Tribune 6.

Defendants. Brodsky, Greenberg and other attorneYs police

represented officer, 09CF1048, received wherein in the in

Drew W. Peterson the PeopTe v.

("Peterso!r") , Peterson, Will

a retj-red County

Case No. which

an years

extremely of

high-profile international on the wife,

criminal media of

case

ongoing

attention, the murder (the

Peterson first

was indicted of his the

charge

degree

third "Savio

Kathleen

Savio

"Savj-o Murder Case" or guilty 1. in his of that On or

Murder Trial"),

and found

charge by a jury about

on September 6, 20122012 Greenberg, Ltd., acting

September 24, Greenberg, but fact were with

own name and d/b/a maliciousty, for the

intent,ionally, or all with of

deliberately, reckless the

knowledge thatr substantially and various but

disregard

that,

statements

therein

fal-se to

mi-sleadj-ng, and sundry not l-imited false, Brodsky hereto

publically members of to St.

distributed the press and the

and published and media, Tribune letter a copy of

i-ncluding a

Clair

Co., of

substantially

scurrilous, ("Greenberg's as Exhibit 8. defamatory narrative attempt because to of

and meritless Letter"), r\A".

and concerning is attached

which

Greenberg's and

Letter,

which was Brodsky

is

substantially of a for

false, false his

misleading, defame him as

comprlsed as

designed termj-nate

revenge

one

of

Peterson's

attorneys and

Greenberg's

incompetence'

unpreparedness,

lack case, for

of

attention to avoid

during any

the

trial

of

the

savio and

murder blame a

and

personal against

responsl-bility

the

guilty illness

verdict

Drew Peterson, not

because of

mental bear in

he suffers

from he could occasioned

psychologically j-nvolvement case, in the and to media' accused

negative loss him in

media attention of such a

by his

the

high-profile of achieving the

criminala career

assist

his

plan

Greenberg, s Brodsky of: a.) b. )

letter

contains

following

falsely

being a liar, being ineffective, incompetent and inept lawyer,

c.)threateningtorevealclient'sconfidences' d. ) threatening Greenberg, committing a former partner, former co-counse], and

e. ) f .)

legal

malpractice' to the detriment of

act j-ng j-n his a cl- j-ent, and

own sel-f -interest

q.)

having otherwise in unprofessional g. Furtherr in his oD or

of confl-icts and unethical about

j-nterest conduct'

and engaging

December 73, Steven A.

20L2 Greenberg, Greenberg, Ltd' '

acting

own name and d/b/a deliberately, Murder Case

intentionally, in the Savio Issues

maliciously a

caused to In

be filed of and

"Memorandum Confl-ict of

Support

Certain Ineffective and then

Concerning of

Interest

Assistance intentionally, that, of with all

Counsel" deliberately, reckless of the

(Greenberg'S maliciously, for

" M e m o " ), with fact were said

knowledge that, false

disregard statements after

the

substantially and misleading,

therein filing and the

and immediately publically

Memorandum Greenberg

distributed

published

the press the

said

Memorandum to including

various but

and not it it.

sundry

members of to St. Clair

the and

and media, Co.,

limited

Tribune

knowing that as

was substantially concerned

false,

scurrilous,

and meritless Memo is

of Greenberg's 10. Both

attached

hereto

Brodsky. A copy \\8". as Exhibit Greenberg's so of Memo

Greenberg's Letter and

Letter Memo") the

and were

("Greenberg's distributed privilege. in a court by

publically any l-awful filed

and published Even though

without

benefit

Greenberg's it was

Memo was initially thereafter for

proceeding, the

deliberately public extra-

published judicial 11. misleading than a

Greenberg

Defendants

non-privileged The in Greenberg its

dj-ssemination. Memo is substantially is false nothing and more

entirety, of

and as a whole misleading,

compellation The

false,

and falsely

defamatory accused

accusations. Brodsky of: a. )

Greenberg

memo contains

being inept

delusional, lawyer, his

j-neffective,

incompetent

and

b.) c. ) d. )

misrepresenting routinely

professional attorney-client and leaking

qualifications, privilege' attorney-client

breaching

threatening to confidences, acting in his of a cl-i-ent, j-ntroducing

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

that the hearsay at trial prosecution from the

g. )

pecuniary with as a cl-ient motive in viol-ation of, professional qualifications

h. )

r.

encouraging a sensationalizing detriment,

pre-indictment the matter

bLiLz" and "media to Peterson's extreme

j.)

signing a publicity per se conflict of

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

would. al-so be published world-wide distribution

and posted

onl-ine on

and viewing. in Greenberg's falsely in by

public Memo,

accusations of and and

contained

concerning that he

Brodsky, had

descrj-bed,

depicted and

imputed

engaged

unprofessional being unethical an

unethical

behavior

and inept,

misconduct

inef f ecti-ve, and

incompetent,

dj-shonest, the

unprofessional-

thereby

imputing to him.

commission of a illegal L4. possessed Following a motive the to

and crj-minal- offenses Peterson' s l-ie and

convl-ct j-on, and

Greenberg lead

defame

discredit (the to

counsel- Brodsky, which wil-lbe

who he personally detailed below) , conviction

resented, in order

cause of avoid to any shift who only

responsibility the sole

for

said

and to

attempt to

responsibility Greenberg to

and blame t.herefore join the Peterson asked, in

Brodsky, team and defense.

allowed after

defense

Greenberg allow

repeatedly him to assist was to

lobbied

begged One

Brodsky to of to with the

Peterson's

reasons

for

this

eliminate to and

Brodsky's

chances

render him

media in this

commentary legaI

and

eliminate destroy his

competition long-time

market with

attorney-cl-ient

relationship

Peterson.

...-t

15. others tegal national of the this Will of

Further, his

Greenberg

often

stated

to

Brodsky head" or often erected

and and

dream of on

becomi-ng a media FOX, network out at CNN,

"talking

commentator TV or while

MSNBC, TruTV He would tent

other talk on

Cable hanging

outlets.

TruTV media

County Courthouse be focated stand, with and during during

during the

Savj-o Murder Trial, while instead witnesses of

where were

he could on the

trial,

breaks

dj-scussing

strategy L6.

co-counsel. obsession with that to both becoming before a media

Greenberg's

commentator Savio

was so overwhelming he expressed

and durj-ng and even with

Murder Trial-,

Brodsky hatred

disparaging fot, and Conti

condescending threats to,

remarks prominent

regarding, Chicago

attorney

Karen

whom he had became incensed position he coveted at to

when she obtained

a commentator as

FOX NEWS CHICAGO, as he saw her get that Greenberg position. Memo acting cli-ent, to was as but directed an

the reason he fail-ed t7. Brodsky. The entire

to

Greenberg best

was interest

thus of

not. his

attorney

promoti-ng the the post-trial poor

i-nstead used to cover to who

proceedings performance and to the

as a vehicle during get the

attempt Murder

up his promote

Savio

Trial-,

himself, (for suffers

vengeance will

against

Brodsky

he resented, because he

reasons that a severe

be detailed

below) known as

from

mental- illness

pathological 18. irrationally professionalresented press caused and

narcj-ssism. of

(DSMIV TR 301-.81) said mental illness ruining Greenberg Brodsky's things, by he the

Because fixated

on and obsessed with because, attention Murder that Trialr

reputation envied the to the

among other paid to

Brodsky mental he

during him

Savio believe

IS his and

illness was

onJ-y he,

alone'

entitled 19. mental Brodsky Peterson destroying

to,

and worthy attention

and praise

of others. due to his of of

On information developed caused him

and belief, animus, to

Greenberg, hatred the

j-l-lness, which

and resentment best interest

ignore

and become irrationally Brodsky because, from

fixated among other appearing

and obsessed with things, Brodsky, cable v. TV

a. ) prevented segment on

Greenberg

on a daily "Greenberg it

feat.urJ-ng the In Session

trial

known as because

Karas" away

TruTv's

program also

was giving with Karas,

defense personal reporter trial to

strategy, intimate, in get from the this more

(which

interfered with he Beth

Greenberg's the during TruTv the

relati-onship segment attention to which

developed b. )

for

himsel-f) , during to

prevented trialto

Greenberg appear about on

traveling Piers

New York

the be

Morgan

TV program criticized in the

interviewed for the the his

defense a great during

strategy, deal the of tria1,

c. ) time

Greenberg press room at for for

spending Courthouse prosecution

even

when wj-tnesses of preparing

were on the

stand,

instead d. ), the

cross-exanimations that Greenberg

and arguments, for

publically

disclosed of

was unprepared

cross-examination the f rom of trial, the

witnesses e. )

and making of to after and the

objections

during

and/or Peterson

attempted team

termj-na+-e Greenberg the conviction

defense

because

Greenberg's depriving

incompetence Greenberg of attention 20. Peterson him to

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

Greenberg's obsessed the his

ill-nesses he

caused falsely way to the

irrationally Peterson reversal that of

Brodsky, and

convinced obtain a

quickest conviction

easiest

resulting

from

Savio

Murder

Trlal

was

to of

make bratantly misconduct the in

fal-se against of

and

il1-

considered Because spend false

allegations was of his

Brodsky. having to to make

Peterson rest

facing life

l-ikerihood prison, he

the

agreed on

allegations

against

Brodsky advice

based

Greenberg, s

incorrect 2L. other

and ilt-conceived Greenberg's the testif it y false defense at the

and counsel-. j-nvolved, Harry among smith

allegations calling

things, to

Attorney

("Smith" ) stated the truth defense witness day prior mental wrong, that

Savi-o Murder decision and to

Trial- .

Greenberg

was Brodsky's advice of

cal-l

Smith against However, in

vehement and fact

himself and

others. members of be

Greenberg agreed that

other

peterson's as a the

team for to the

smlth

shoul-d

called

defense on three

(3) separate

occasions

and day smith causes or

was calted. believe that

Because Greenberg's that there he can never were two be (2) and

illness he

him to forgot both that

ignored

independent heard

wi-tnesses,

attorneys, smith

who were present

and saw him agree defense. him into rndeed,

shourd

be cal-l-ed by the Greenberg

Peterson escorted 22.

when smith

was called,

the Courtroom. and crair, belief, Greenberg entered for to the

On information st.

an agreement with Tribune which for she he co.

an employee and agent for the chicago Tribune,

and a reporter sealed and

under to her and

leaked

privileged the j-n her

information Murder in thus facto clair chird

her

news stories

concerning him

savio

case,

j-n exchange placated and the

promoted his

articles

a manner making public and murder Dupage

which herself

pathologicalinto

narcissism, de st. of

Tribune said in

Greenberg's between

rel-ations Greenberg Brian

agent. originated the

agreement his

representation publicized and

Dugan in

widely

reported

County Nacarrico 23. On

murder case. and to belief, St. C1air as a part of said Co.

information leaked

agreement Greenberg a copy of presiding

and the White's

Tribune 20L0

Judge in St. very team.

Stephen the Savio and

sealed was no

hearsay leaked other the

hearing

decision to

Murder Case, that the Tribune Greenberg published She and

exclusi-vely news reporter,

Cl-air shortly St. of

after

joined

Peterson show had to

defense the

Clair's

articles also had

clearly access case,

promoti-on

Greenberg. in the

privileged discovery

information documents in no other prior

Savio

Murder child

and sealed via

the

Nacarrico had.

murder case, 24. Defendants good a1I At

Greenberg that times and

reporter to the

al-lfalse

relevant

Greenberg had has a at and

defamatory in to

statements his

Brodsky and

professional times denied

reputation and continue

community of

deny all

said

false

untrue

accusati-ons As

and insinuations. a result of one or more of Pt of the se and

25. Greenberg defamatory concerning

proximate

Defendants' accusations Brodsky that

said and imputed

malicious, statements

fa1se, made

he had engaged in

dishonest held

and unprofessionalup to great

conduct

he was caused to hatred,

be wrongly

public distress, injury good

scorn,

contempt,

ridi-cule, and and was

humiliat.i-on, suffer great

anguish, to his

anxiety, honor,

disgrace, personal and

dignity, and

reputation, thereby his

name,

professj-on and

occupation caused his

falsely

stigmatized with

further and legal a

damage to other and

rel-ationship clients

Peterson, in the

prospective

and peers

profession. be entered jointly

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF in and his favor and against for

PRAYS that the

judgment

Greenberg and

Defendants, punitlve

severally,

compensatory 10

damages in

great and

excess for in such

of

fifty

thousand and further

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

as paragraphs herein. al-l times have

stated 26 . At

rel-evant, known or

the

Greenberg that be

Def endants when likely said to

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

pecuniary statements light in foss

interests. placed the to Brodsky and his eye thereby as a

practice him of 28. said

public be

causi-ng result

direct

pecuniary

suffered profits.

disparagement light in to

including which

lost the

The false

Brodsky person. are

was placed

would be highly 29. vi-cariously The

offensi-ve Greenberg for was at

a reasonable Defendants

jointly caused

and Brodsky scope

l-iable

the all-

damages thereby times acting

because Greenberg of his

within

the

agency and employment. PRAYS that the a judgment be entered jointly

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF in and great his favor and against for fifty

Greenberg and

Defendants, punitive

severally, excess of

compensatory

damages in costs,

thousand dollars rel-ief

($50,000.00),

and such other in the premises.

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

as paragraphs herein. all

1 through

25 of

this

Count III

as if

stated 26. At

times Act

relevant, in

the relevant

lllinois part, in

Deceptive "a the the person course person by

Trade

Practices

provides trade

engages in of his or

a deceptive her business, the goods,

practice or or of

when,

vocation, services,

occupation, busj-ness fact." oFI or of

di-sparages

another

fal-se or misl-eading representation 27. dates, On information and in violation and belief, of the the

815 ILCS 570/2 about aforesaid Trade

Illinois

Deceptj-ve

Practices Greenberg reporter statements, therein Peterson of to

Act,

815 ILCS 5I0/2,

Greenberg Defendants by to, reason would St. to be that Clai-r, know a his

maliciously for of the the

communicated having

Tribune,

and concerning public and on

Brodsky, the

published included clients false their his

Internet, or

and one or

more other

actual the

potential specified for

Brodsky, and with

substantially

above in cal-l

statement falsity, competency,

misrepresentation the intent to

disregard into

question,

integrity, and services. Greenberg

1ega1

ability,

skills,

representation, 28. misleading Brodsky's his to The

Defendants with the in

made intent order

said to discredit

fal-se

and

statements professionaL and to

disparage him and so as or of

services inflict potential

reputation deter

pecuniary clients destroy

harm on him from the

and dissuade

retaining

doing his

busj-ness with services. At all-

him and to

marketability

legal 29.

times

relevant,

the

Greenberg

Defendants

knew or

should

have known that comprised fact

when made, saj-d disparaging of fal-se woul-d be or likely misleading to cause

statements representations

were of

and that

T2

harm to 30. said in his

Brodsky's At all-

pecuniary. times relevant, the Greenberg Defendants Brodsky direct of the

false

communications

commercially thereby by

disparaged causing a him

profession loss to

and business be suffered

pecuniary

them as to of

result

disparagement reputation, damages. 31. practices The have lost

including profits,

damage loss

his will

professional and other

good

Greenberg caused

Defendants will

said

deceptive to cause is

trade Brodsky

and

continue which

damages and irreparable remedy at law.

harm for

there

no adequate

W H E R E F O R E ,P L A I N T I F F judgment A. engaged Plaintiffs B. enjoining their in his favor

PRAYS that

this

Court

enter

as follows: the trade Greenberg practice Defendants with respect have to

finding in a

that deceptive business a

in his issuing and

and profession; and permanent injunction, and

preliminary the

prohibiting servants,

Greenberg

Defendants

agents,

employees,

offlcers,

attorneys, Brodsky

successors in his C. general, damages severally, D.

and assi-gns from

commercially

disparaged

business

and profession; l-ost profits, economic, Greenberg loss of good will, and jointly treble and

awardj-ng him his compensatory, against the

punitj-ve Defendants, trial,' the

as the proofs awarding jointly him

wil-l- show at costs

against and and

Greenberg

Defendants, E. agaj-nst

and severally, him such

granting the

other

further

relief as

Greenberg and proper

Defendants, in

jointly

and severally,

may be just

the premises.

13

COUNT IV

(Commercial- Disparagement Against The Greenberg Defendants)

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

as paragraphs herein. al-l- times of

relevant Brodsky to

the in

Greenberg the legal

Defendants, professJ-on

compet,itors and with

generally 27. the Iegal him in

respect

Peterson in at

particular. allof times relevant, in the

Under ll-linois Defendants,

c o f l r m o nl a w ,

Greenberg

as competitors

Brodsky to

profession, connecti-on services

had and owed him a duty with his busj-ness,

not

disparage occupation

vocation,

or legal 28. 24, 2012

On informatj-on and that

and belief, 20L2 the

on or

about

September Defendants

December 13, duty by having

Greenberg

breached

intentionally services, statements.

and maliciously and busj-ness by

disparaged maki-ng said 29. or

Brodsky's false

reputation,

or misl-eading

The Greenberg statements or

Defendants to St.

communicated

sald for

false the

misleading

C1air, to

a reporter know his

Tribune, of

knowing

having

reason would

statements,

and concerning and that or on

Brodsky, the

be reported it was,

and published and his the to the other above in into

therein public, actual specified disregard question, skill-s, 30. misleading

Internet, Peterson cl-ients, statement falsity,

which

j-ncluded potential false

and one or more of substantially and with

misrepresentation the intent to 1egal call

for the

their

competency,

and

integrity,

ability,

and representation, The Greenberg

and services. Defendants with the made intent said to false and

statements

di-sparage

L4

Brodsky's his to

professionaL and to

services inflict potential and to

in

order

discredit

him and so as or and

reputation deter

pecuniary clients reduce

harm on him from the

and dissuade with of his alI

retaining

doing

business

him

credibility

marketability 31. knew or said false coul-d At

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

pecuniary 32. said

interests. At all times and Brodsky in relevant, the Greenberg Defendants

false

misleading his

statements

commercially thereby

disparaged causing a result

professj-on loss to

and business be suffered

him direct of the

pecuniary

by them as his

disparagement lost

including profits, Ioss

damage to of

professional and other 33.

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

misleading respect to in to the and

commercially

law practice,

clientele in

and professi-onaI thereby as a loss

reputation causing him of

general suffer

and Peterson direct

particular loss profits,

pecuniary including lost

resul-t of

disparagement other damages.

good will

W H E R E F O R E ,P L A I N T f F F judgment A. in their favor the

PRAYS that

this

Court

enter

as foll-ows: Greenberg 15 Defendants have

flnding

commercially B. general, the

disparaged him

him in l-ost

his

profession loss

and business; of good wj-Il'

awarding

profits,

compensatory,

economic, jointly

punitive and

damages agalnst severally, as the

Greenberg will-

Defendants,

proofs c.

show at trial; him costs against and and further jointly relief as the Greenberg

awarding jointly granting

Defendants D. against

and severally; him such other

the Greenberg Defendants, and proper in

and severally'

may be just

the premises. Defendants) of count vI as if

(Defamation

COUNT V Against the Tribune

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

Chicago Greenberg in of the the were

Tribune Letter, Chicago

and on the

internet,

oD December 13, Tribune Memo, and on

2Ot2 they the that internet the

published contents thereof

Greenberg untrue, 21. Tribune

knowing

contents

false The

and defamatorY. Greenberg with Defendants copies of directly the provided Letter the and and

Defendants the

Greenberg

Memo containing al-so provided the press

false of

and defamatory them to for for various

accusations' other

copies and

members of nonthose

media

public the

extra-judicialof for having

privi-leged documents distribution

dissemination, published on the and

purpose online

posted

world-wide

Internet.

T6

28. Brodsky, published about

Among St. in

their and

defamatory the Tribune and and Tribune

accusations Co.

against and on or they the

Clair the

reported Internet

Chicago 24,

and on the December with

September

2012

13,

20\2' that

j-ntentionally, statements disregard misleading,

maliciously, were false whether and said

knowledge or with were contents

mistreading statements the ful-l-

reckless false of and the for

for

they

published

Greenberg Letter public viewing 29. Clair As

and Memo thereby and downloading part of her via

making them available the Internet. with Greenberg, Letter to

agreement

St. be

caused the in site the

Greenberg

Memo and Greenberg and on the Greenberg for

published Internet and the court

Chicago Tribune to with reward

Chicago Tribune providing her

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

Murder case, her

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

informati-on. St. to Cl-air be or caused the even

and belief, Letter

Greenberg should or her not to

published had

she

have they keep

known, were her to truth. Tribune

recklessly it was

disregarded more

true, source any

because of other

important that

exclusive reporter and a

information than belief, blind it

was not her to

available the

was for in

report the

On i-nformatlon edj-tors turned

so doing, what of St.

Chicago

eye to flow her

Clair

was doing stories that

because it St. for Clair

wanted to provided and

keep the through

exclusj-ve

agreement

with

Greenberg

sealed

impounded documents and privileged

information.

t7

31defamatory Defendants republished employees

During

or

about

said were

time

and dates by

the the

aforesaid Tribune and/or agents media area and news ful-lfull_

statements they said and/or

published communicated, to other

maliciously defamations staff of

pubrished

representatives, various things, major chicago

organizations and national

i-ncluding, and

among other

international

newspapers, radio,

tel-evision

radj-o stations, media, extent

internet

websites, and cannot

and internet the

news wire and nature

services, of which

unknown others, be determine

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

reputation and continue

community the to

deny al-l- of

their

said and

complaj-ned of untrue. 33. described

accusations

and insinuations

be false

As proxJ-mate a result mal-icious, false r

of

one or more of defamatory Brodsky

the

above

pl^ se

accusations that imputed dishonest public anguish, honor, name,

and statements he had

made of in

and concerni-ng

engaged so as to hatred,

incompetent,

unethj-calbe held up to

and

conduct scorn, anxiety, personal

intentionally contempt, gredt

great

ri-dicu1e, injury to

humi_1iation, his dignity, good

disgracer and life On

professional_ activities information

reputat j_on,

occupation, 34. individually of her

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

Trj-bune co., failed to

Greenberg, basis or such of find as

investigate accusations relevant

said out

Greenberg's

condition, accusations based in scurrilous meaningful out his

investi-gate had oI were to, true

as or

to

whether and

t'he were or

defamatory were not and any find

fal-se launching to

fact,

before

their any in

del-iberate time or in to

media

attack

on him, to facts

at

way make inquiry version of the

Brodsky or

attempt him to

a1low with

provide thereto. to and

relevant St. keep Clair the

contradictory was acted flow of in

information this

respect

manner because and impounded

she wanted documents

sealed her

privileged provided 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

scope of her agency and/or PRAYS that the a

employment. be entered jointly

PLAINTIFF WHEREFORE in and great and his favor and for fifty against

judgment

Tribune and

Defendants, punitive

severally, excess of for in such

compensatory

damages in costs' just and

thousand dolrars and further relief

($50'000'00), as may be

other

proper

the premises.
COUNT VI

(Fal-se Light l--35. Brodsky

Against

the

Tribune

Defendants) 1 though Count VI 35 of

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

Tribune false to hlm

Defendants statements cause in a harm false

should it

have could

known that or woul-d

when said be and likely place

made

Brodsky's light in

pecuniary the public

interests eye.
IY

31 Cl-air's

Pursuant article

to

her

agreement

with

Greenberg, Brodsky eye. practice in

St.

promoted a false

him and disparaged light in and eye the public his the law

thereby

portraying 38. false thereby said will-

him in By

placing in the him

Brodsky public direct including

light

Tribune loss as a loss

Defendants result of of good

caused

pecuniary lost

disparagement and other 39. The

profits,

damages. Tribune for was at the a1I Defendants are jointly caused within and Brodsky scope

vj-cariously because St. of his

liable Clair

damages thereby times acting

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

40. statements false light 4I.

Brodsky

The false

would be highly

offensive

to a reasonable PRAYS that the a

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF in and great his favor and for fifty against

Tri-bune and

Defendants, punitive

severally, excess of

compensatory

damages in costs,

thousand doll-ars relief

($50,000.00),

and such other in the premises.

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

as paragraphs herein. all

Count VIfI

stated 26 . At

t j-mes relevant, Act provi-des trade in

the relevant

Illinois part, in

Deceptive "a the person course

Trade

Practices

engages in

a deceptive

practice

when,

20

of

his

or her business, the goods,

vocation, services,

or or of

occupation, business fact." ofl or of

the person another by

disparages

fal-se or misleading 27. 24,

representation and belief, 20L2,

815 ILCS 5I0/2 about violation September of the the

On information

2OL2 and

December 13,

and Act,

in

Illinois Greenberg to St.

Deceptive

Trade Practices by Greenberg

815 ILCS 510/2,

Defendants an the

maliciously and

communi-cated for the

Clair, Co.,

employee,

agent

reporter

Tribune to

Greenberg of by it

Letter

and Memo, having Brodsky

reason be and

know his

statements

and concerning them in was' to the the or the

would

reported on the more of

and published Internet, which

Chicago public,

Tribune

and to

one or in i-nto

Brodsky's for his their

other falsity,

actual with

potential intent to

cl-ients call

disregard question,

competency,

integrity,

lega1

ability'

skills,

representation, 28. misleading Brodsky's reputation and The

and services. Tribune Defendants knowing that services pecuniary cl-ients to reduce made to said false and

statements professj-onal and inflict potential him and

do so would disparage him and his deter doing of his

and discredit

harrn on him so as to from the retaining marketability or

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

known that were of

when made, comprised fact and that

disparaging mj-sleading

statements representations to

coul-d or having

would be likely a pecuniary 30. Greenberg though St.

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

Trj-bune co. that was

keep their availabre the

excl-usive reporter

information than it

to truth.

any on

other

was for in what of so st.

them to doing, cl-air

report the

information turned

and

belief, eye to flow her

Trj-bune

editors it

a blind

was doing stories that

because st. for

wanted to provided

keep the through

exclusj-ve with

crair sealed

agreement

Greenberg information.

and impounded documents and privileged 31. said At all times relevant, and his the

Tribune

Defendants commercialry thereby

farse

publication Brodsky in

communications

disparaged

profession loss to

and business be suffered his wirr

causi-ng him direct a resurt thereof, lost

pecuniary including profits,

by them as professional and other

damage to loss of good

reputation, damages. 32. practices The

Tribune caused

Defendants and wil-l-

said

deceptive to cause is

trade Brodsky

have

continue which

damages and irreparable remedy at l-aw.

harm for

there

no adequate

W H E R E F O R E ,P L A I N T I F F judgment A. 1n his finding favor that

PRAYS that

this

Court

enter

as follows: the Tribune with Defendants respect to have engaged in

i-n a d e c e p t i v e his business B. enjoining agents, successors his

trade

practice

plaintiffs

and profession,. a preliminary the and Tribune permanent Defendants offi_cers, injunction, and their attorneys, him in

issulng

and prohibj-ting servants, and assigns

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

as the proofs awarding jointly granting Tribune and proper him

show at trial; costs against and and further relief as the Tribune

Defendants, E.

and severally, him such

other jointly

agaJ-nst the may be just

Defendants, in

and

severally,

the premis'es.
COUNTVIII

(FaIse Light L-25. Count fu1ly I

Against

the Hosey Defendants) paragraphs 25 of this 1 though 25 of Count IX as if

Brodsky re-alleges 1 through

as paragraphs herein. alltimes

stated 26. At

relevant, d/b/a AOL

AOL,

Inc.

("AOL"), the Patch,

was a the Patch

Delaware Patch. com,

Corporation the the all Joliet

Patch, the of

Patch in

and

Shorewood Illinois.

(coll-ectively 21. ("Patch in At

"Patch"), tj-mes

the State Patch

relevant,

Media d/b/a

Corporation the Patch

Media") of

was a Delaware Corporation f l-linois. times in in relevant the nothing was and Joliet hereto, worst more

the State 28. At

al-l is is a

Joseph type than of a to

Hosey yellow bu1ly be an

("Hosey", journalist

who and as

reality fact

masquerading agent Patch of, which d/b/a

journal-ist, of the

continues Patch and

and is

edj-tor

Shorewood

(*AOL"\

owned by AOL, Inc., a Delaware AOL Patch and the 'tPatch" and the the "Patch"), al-1 collectively

Corporation "Patch.com" hereinafter

(collective1y referred 29. posted and or

to as the At all

"Hosey Defendants". times rel-evant about that hereto, Hosey authored,

republished Savio by Murder

stories Trial-

and concerni-ng Peterson were published Patch on on one the or

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 : / / lemont. patch. com http: / /oakforest .patch. com

http : / / downe rsgrove . patch . com http : / / ch icagoheight http: / /darien-ils . patch . com

.patch. com com

http: / /hinsdaTe.patch. http: / /burrridge

.patch . com patch. com

http : / / f rankfort.

http: / /homewood-f J-ossmoor.patch. com http: / / stchar-les-iL .patch. com

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

http : / /yorkvi http:

7 7e . patch. com .patch. com

/ /northbrook

h t t p : / / p a f o s .p a t c h . c o m http: / /nontgomery.patch. http: / /newlenox.patch. com com

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

by patch Media") are

Del-aware Corporation AOL and Patch

Media corporati-on, d/b/a the ..patch,,. hereinafter

Hosey,

sometimes

collectively 31. contrary reporter, Vows: Vows")

referred

to as the "Hosey Defendants". and had published, as an objective book entitled new

In or to his

about 2008 Hosey authored professed self-portray false

a biased

and factually Wives 2012, of

"Fatal. ("Fatal "Drew and the

The Tragic which, in

Sergieant

Drew Peterson" a film titLed produced

was made j-nto

Peterson: broadcast Lifetime 32. dramatize, Untouchable, continuing thereafter though

Untouchable" by Lifetime

("Untouchabl-e" ) services,

Entertainment

LLC d/b/a LLC. to

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

hype, Vows, and

promoting starting at the l-east savio

Fatal_ in 2009, every Murder

month Trial) and truth Hosey

January

Hosey intentionally, reckless disregard

knowingly for the with

maliciously authored, and and each with

and

and AoL and Patch Media in other, reckless on the intentionally, dI-sregard Patch a for

conjunction and

knowingly the truth

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,

and misleading and false

misleading the

quotations, "false Brodsky,

and

misleading all of

innuendo, ( and

and misleading which Hosey

statements") knew, and the

concerning

other be

Hosey Defendants false

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

and misleading like1y a to cause

statements harm to

were made it the interests him in said in

could of the

would

Brodsky light in

having

pecuniary eye. and

val-ue and place 34 his That

a false

the public placed

false a false

publications light in loss the to

Brodsky

law practice him of

public be lost

eye thereby as a

causing result of

direct

pecuniary

suffered profits,

said

disparagement

includj-ng

loss

good wiII 35.

and other during Hosey the thereof worst

damages. the aforesaid period, in yellow what Hosey, can and by be in a

That the as

extension described furtherance

Defendants, type to of

only and Patch

journalism, on the

caused

be published series of

interconnected nothing Brodsky, Brodsky's the public 36. fa11ed to, an

and continuous intentional with

arti-cles

which

were

defamatory the intent

smear by in

campaJ-gn against Hosey a false to injure in

published reputation eye. In

and portray

him

light

furtherance and the in truth factual

of

this

smear really of the find

campaign, to,

Hosey

didn't basis or

care said out

properly defamatory

investigate accusations relevant defamatory

agai-nst facts and

Brodsky, factors, had were

salient whether or had

and the any

investigate true or fal-se

accusations

26

basis

in

fact he

because

Hosey about

didn't Brodsky

care

whether or

nor not,

not as

anything long as it 37. deliberate and the

published

was true Brodsky. his on to into or the

was a defamatory Further, and before

smear of

launching media never attack cared

intentional-, Brodsky, Hosey, make what to to

scurrilous

Hosey Defendants, or legitimate or

wanted to basis of

any meaningful they

inquiry

was publishing, a fair or

even make a legitimate version of the

attempt facts, with ox

provide publish thereto. nothing believes

balanced

any relevant Hosey acted but that a bully he smear pleasure, career. The Patch, blind of to

contradictory in this

information

respect j-n fact, who an own fii_m

manner because he is, as a

masquerading Ij-cense to

journalist, and conduct for his and

had a

defame,

intentionalperverse writing 38. wi1lfu11y worse

campaign while

against,

Brodsky his literary

advancing

Patch Media, fact that

AOL Patch,

knew, or in

were the true their

the

Hosey was engaging devoid contravention act with of an of

type

yellow

journalism, and in

journalistic published integrity, series nothing against 39. vicariously of

standards, pledge that

Patch websites

journallstic publish recognize by a as

and they artj-cl-es more than

al-lowed Hosey to which a any reader

continually

can easily

defamatory

smear

campaign

Hosey

Brodsky. That liable the for all Hosey the Defendants are jointly caused the and Brodsky scope of

damages thereby acting within

because Hosey was at his agency. 40 statements false light The and in Hosey

times

Defendants cast eye. and

foregoing portrayed

defamatory Brodsky in a

conduct the public

27

4!.

The false

light

in to

which

the

Brodsky person. judgment

was placed

would be highly

offensive

a reasonable a

V{HEREFORE PLAINTIFF in his favor for fifty and against

PRAYS that the

be

entered and great and in

Hosey Defendants, and punj-tive

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

as paragraphs stated At all herein. times Act

1 through

this

relevant, in

the relevant

fllinois part, in

Deceptive "a the the person course person by

Practices

provides trade

engages in of his or

a deceptive her business, the goods,

practice or or of

when,

vocation, services,

occupation, business fact." in of

disparages false

another

or misleading 43As in every Murder stated 2009, month

representation aforesaid,

815 ILCS 510/2 on or about of at the Hosey reckless Media

starting

starting least Savio

and continuing thereafter though

on a regular (and every of day

basis during 20L3,

Trial-) knowingly the truth

January

intentionally, disregard in for

and maliciously authored,

and with

and AOL and Patch other, reckless on of

conjunction

with

Hosey and

each

intentionally, disregard the patch false for a and fal-se

knowingly the truth

and malj-ciously caused and to

and with be

published series

i-nterconnected misleading and

conti-nuous false

stories,

and misleadj-ng false and

statements,

misleading

reports,

misleading

quotations,

2B

and

fal-se

and

misleading all-

innuendo, (the of and

.'farse

and

misleading which

statements")

concerning

Brodsky, and patch

Hosey knew, and the should

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

and on the to the

and thereby one or more

which or

public,

actual

potential 45. cal-I into

clients

of Brodsky. did so with and the intent to of and

The Hosey Defendants question, lega1 in order ability, to inflict the

competency skil-1s and

integrity

Brodsky's services

representation,

pecuniary and potentiar destroy the

harm on him so as to clients from doing of his

det.er and dissuade business legal with

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

misleading disparage discredit

serj-es Brodsky's

services and to infl-ict potential

them and his so as to or doing

pecuniary clients reduce the

harm on him from retaining marketability 41. or said or shouLd series misreading At

and dissuade with

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

and disparaging they coul-d or

statements woul-d be

false to

that

cause harm to Brodsky,s 48. false At aLl times

pecuniary relevant,

interests. the Hosey Defendants said

and misleading in his

communications

commercialJ-y disparaged causing him of

Brodsky di-rect

profession loss to

and busj-ness thereby be sufferecl

pecuniary

by them as a result

29

the

disparagement rost

including profits,

damage loss of

to good

his

professional_ and other

reputation, damages. 49. practices The

wil-l-

Hosey caused

Defendants and will

said continue which

deceptive to cause is

trade Brodsky

have

damages and irreparable remedy at l-aw.

harm for

there

no adequate

W H E R E F O R E ,P L A I N T f F F judgment A. a his in his finding trade favor that

pRAyS that

this

Court

enter

as fel-l_ows: the Hosey Defendants with respect to have engaged in plaintiffs in

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

and assj-gns from

commercially

disparaged

business

and professj-on,. him lost profits, loss punitive of good and jointly will, trebte and

awarding

compensatory, against the

economic, Hosey will costs and

Defendants,

as the proofs awarding him

show at trial; against the Hosey Defendants,

and severally, granting the

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