case: 1:14-cv-00853 document #: 77-1 filed: 07/28/14 page...

Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 of 42 PageID #:341

Eric

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT 1

Eric

Typewritten Text

Eric

Typewritten Text

Eric

Typewritten Text

Eric

Typewritten Text

Eric

Typewritten Text

Eric

Typewritten Text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TINLEYSPARKS, Inc., an Illinois Not-for-Profit )

Corporation, )

STEPHEN E. EBERHARDT, Individually, and as one )

of the Directors and President of TinleySparks, Inc., )

KAREN E. WEIGAND, Individually, and as one of the )

Directors and Vice-President of TinleySparks, Inc., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

VILLAGE OF TINLEY PARK, a Municipal Corporation, ) No: 1:14-cv-853

EDWARD J. ZABROCKI, Jr., President/Mayor, )

PATRICK REA, Clerk, )

DAVID G. SEAMAN, Trustee, Liaison to the )

MainStreet Commission, )

GREGORY J. HANNON, Trustee, )

BRIAN MAHER, Trustee, )

TERRENCE AT.J@ GRADY, Trustee, )

THOMAS STAUNTON, Jr., Trustee, Liaison to the )

Community Resources Commission, )

PATRICIA LEONI, Trustee, )

LOUISE AJUDY@ BRUNING, Assistant to the Mayor, )

RONALD BRUNING, Zoning Administrator, )

DONNA FRAMKE, Marketing Director, Staff Liaison )

to MainStreet Commission, Member Social Media )

Subcommittee, )

MICHAEL CLARK, Chairperson, MainStreet )

Commission, Member Social Media Subcommittee, )

ELLEN CLARK, Chairperson, ABoo-Bash Committee,@ )

RICHARD BUTKUS, Member, MainStreet Commission, )

MARTIN WARD, Chairman, Economic Commercial )

Commission )

MARGE WEINER, Member, Senior Services Commission, )

THOMAS ADOC@ MAHONEY, Chairman, Mayor=s )

Advisory Panel on Wellness, Member, Long Range )

Plan Commission, )

CATHY MALONEY, former Independent Contractor and )

Member Social Media Subcommittee, )

)

Defendants. )


2

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

UNDER TITLE 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 et. seq. and

TITLE 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1988.

COME NOW the above named Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Gary Ravitz and

Eric S. Palles of RAVITZ & PALLES, P.C. and Stephen E. Eberhardt of the LAW OFFICES OF

STEPHEN E. EBERHARDT, and allege against the above named Defendants as follows:

1. This is an action for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief brought by the

Plaintiffs Stephen E. Eberhardt and Karen E. Weigand individually and the Plaintiff Corporation

by and through its officers Stephen E. Eberhardt and Karen E. Weigand and as members of the

Plaintiff Corporation’s predecessor association-in-fact, seeking an injunction prohibiting the

Defendants, their agents, employees and servants from engaging in any actions to enforce

policies, customs and practices that unconstitutionally infringe on the First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

2. Defendants are sued in both their official and individual capacities as the

complained of policies, customs and practices were purposefully instituted and continue to be

enforced by the Defendants using their positions as elected and appointed officials for the

Defendant Village of Tinley Park in an effort to censor the Plaintiffs= speech while intending to

advance and benefit the personal and political interests of the Defendants and others in violation

of the Plaintiffs= federal constitutional rights. As such, the Plaintiffs also seek damages as

against each of the Defendants individually.


3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, et seq. and Section

1988.

4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1331 and 28 U.S.C. '1343 (3)

and (4). The court has supplemental jurisdiction of the state-law claims made against certain of

the individual Defendants, which arise from the same core of operative facts as the federal

claims.

5. Venue is appropriate in this district under 28 U.S.C. '1391(b) because the events

that give rise to this complaint occurred in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

6. As set forth more fully below, an actual and concrete controversy exists between

the parties.

PARTIES AND BACKGROUND

A. The Plaintiffs

7. First formed in 2010, Plaintiff TinleySparks began as an association-in-fact of

citizens of the Village of Tinley Park, Illinois (hereinafter Village), devoted to civic and political

purposes. On June 28, 2013, it incorporated as TinleySparks, Inc., an Illinois not-for-profit

corporation, whose Articles of Incorporation reflect its civic and political purposes.

TinleySparks maintains a website (www.TinleySparks.com) and Facebook page.1

1 Ahttps://www.facebook.com/pages/TinleySparks/372043072812385?ref=hl@


4

8. Plaintiff Stephen E. Eberhardt (Eberhardt) is a United States citizen, and a

resident, businessman and taxpayer of the Village, which is located in the Northern District of

Illinois. Eberhardt is a Director and the President of TinleySparks, Inc. Eberhardt is an attorney

whose Law Offices of Stephen E. Eberhardt are located in an area that the Village has designated

as ADowntown Tinley.” From 2007-2013, Eberhardt was an appointed member of the Village

Police Department Crime Prevention Committee. In the April 2013 consolidated election,

Eberhardt ran as a candidate for Village office. Following the election, Eberhardt was notified

by Defendant Edward J. Zabrocki, Jr. (Zabrocki) and Defendant Brian Maher (Maher) that he

would not be reappointed to this Committee.

9. Plaintiff Karen E. Weigand (Weigand) is a citizen of the United States and a resident

and taxpayer of the Village. Weigand is a Director and Vice-President of TinleySparks, Inc.

Weigand also was a candidate for public office in the Village in the April 2013 Consolidated

Election.

B. The Defendants

10. Defendant Village is a municipal corporation. The Village operates under the

council-manager form of government, with a Mayor, Village Clerk, six-member Board of

Trustees, Village Manager and professional staff. The Mayor and Trustees serve as the policy-

making body of the Village. In addition, numerous Village commissions and committees, staffed

by volunteers representing private citizens and businesses alike, focus on various aspects of

economic development, long-range planning, residential issues and community projects and

activities.


5

1) Elected Officials

11. Edward J. Zabrocki, Jr. (Zabrocki) is currently the elected Village

Mayor/President and its appointed Liquor Commissioner. He has held the office of

Mayor/President since 1981. He most recently was a candidate for this office in the April 2013

Consolidated Election. He is the leader of a political organization currently supported by two

political committees comprised of all the current elected officials and other persons and

supporters. The name of the organization changes from time to time based on which elected

officials are running for reelection. Most recently Zabrocki’s political organization was known

as ATeam Tinley 2013 (Team Tinley).@

12. Defendant Patrick Rea (Rea) is currently the elected Village Clerk. A member of

Zabrocki’s political organization, he most recently ran for this office in the April 2013

Consolidated Election.

13. Defendant David G. Seaman (Seaman) was appointed by Zabrocki in 1984 to be a

Village Trustee and in 1985 he ran unopposed and was elected to this office. A member of Team

Tinley, he most recently was re-elected in the April 2013 Consolidated Election.

14. Defendant Gregory Hannon (Hannon) was elected as a Trustee to the Village

Board in 1987 and remains a Village Trustee and member of Zabrocki’s political organization.

15. Defendant Brian Maher (Maher) was first elected to the position of Village

Trustee in 1999 with Zabrocki=s endorsement. Before being elected in 1999, he had been

appointed by Zabrocki to the Village=s Economic Commercial and the Long Range Plan


6

Commissions. More recently, as a Team Tinley candidate in the April 2013 Consolidated

Election, Maher won election as a Village Trustee.

16. Defendant Terrence AT.J.@ Grady (Grady) currently is a Village Trustee. After

Zabrocki appointed him to this position in 2010, he ran unopposed in 2011 and was elected.

More recently, as a Team Tinley candidate in the April 2013 Consolidated Election, Grady was

re-elected to this position.

17. Defendant Thomas Staunton, Jr. is an elected Village Trustee. Staunton is

currently the Trustee Liaison to the Village Community Resources Commission. In 2002

Zabrocki appointed him to the Historic Preservation Commission and the Long Range Planning

Commission. Zabrocki also selected him to run for the office of Trustee and was endorsed by

him. Staunton was elected to the Village Board in an uncontested election.

18. Defendant Patricia Leoni is an elected Village Trustee appointed to the Village

Board by Zabrocki in 2009 She was later elected to the Village Board in 2011 in an uncontested

election.

2) Village of Tinley Park Employees

19. Defendant Louise AJudy@ Bruning (J. Bruning) is a Village employee and

Zabrocki=s assistant. As Secretary/Treasurer of Zabrocki=s political committees, ACitizens for Ed

Zabrocki,@ and ACitizens to Elect Tinley Park Officials,@ she is part of Zabrocki’s political

organization. On the committees= D-1 Statements of Organization filed with the Illinois State

Board of Elections, J. Bruning=s listed telephone number is her telephone number at the Village

Hall.


7

20. Defendant Ronald Bruning (R. Bruning) is employed as the Village=s Zoning

Administrator. As Chairperson of ACitizens for Ed Zabrocki,@ and, formerly, Chairperson of

ACitizens to Elect Tinley Park Village Officials,@ he is part of Zabrocki’s political organization.

R. Bruning is married to J. Bruning. Together they own and operate AHeather Haus Florist,@ a

business that is a Village Vendor and is located in ADowntown Tinley.@

21. Defendant Donna Framke (Framke) is employed as Village Marketing Director.

She is the Staff Liaison for the Village MainStreet Commission, and is a member of its Social

Media Subcommittee.

22. Defendant Cathy Maloney (Maloney) was employed by the Village to provide

marketing services to ADowntown Tinley@ and assist the MainStreet Commission. She is a

member of the MainStreet Commission=s Social Media Subcommittee.

3) Tinley Park Appointed Commission Members

23. Defendant Michael Clark (M. Clark) was appointed Commissioner by Zabrocki in

1998 and installed as the Chairperson of the Village MainStreet Commission. He is a member of

the Commission=s Social Media Subcommittee. He also is co-owner of a ADowntown Tinley@

business, AEd n Joe=s Restaurant and Pizzeria,@ which is a Village Vendor.2 M. Clark has made

campaign contributions to Zabrocki and Team Tinley and posted their campaign signs3 at his

restaurant. As a quid pro quo for his contributions and services, Clark has been given certain

2 As Chairperson, Clark has approved payments to his restaurant for food provided at

MainStreet Commission meetings.

3 On two (2) occasions prior to the April 2013 Consolidated Election, in violation of the

Village=s campaign sign Ordinance.


8

benefits including an exemption from the Village requirement to obtain a renter=s license.

Additionally, in or about March 2001, pursuant the Village=s AFacade Improvement Program,@ M.

Clark received $35,000 in Village funds.

24. Defendant Ellen Clark (E. Clark) is married to M. Clark. She is co-owner of AEd

and Joe=s Pizzeria and Restaurant.@ She has been appointed by Zabrocki and J. Bruning to be the

Chairperson for various ADowntown Tinley@ events, including the 2012 ADowntown Kiddie Boo-

Bash,@ among others. As Chairperson, she has circulated nominating petitions on behalf of

Zabrocki and Team Tinley at the ATinley Park Farmer=s Market@ and elsewhere.

25. Defendant Richard Butkus (Butkus) is an appointed Commissioner to the

Village=s MainStreet Commission. He owns a ADowntown Tinley@ business known as APhotos

by Rick,@ which is a Village Vendor. As a quid pro quo for his contributions and services,

Butkus has been given certain benefits including an exemption from the Village requirement to

obtain a renter=s license.

26. Defendant Martin Ward (Ward) is an appointed Commissioner and Chairman of

the Village Economic Commercial Commission. As of March 27, 2013, he was Chairperson of

ACitizens to Elect Tinley Park Village Officials, and is part of Team Tinley. He also is the

owner/president of a Village business named ACrossmark Printing,@ which is a Village Vendor.

27. Defendant Marge Weiner (Weiner) is an appointed Commissioner to the Senior

Services Commission and runs the Tinley Park Senior Center.


9

28. Defendant Thomas ADoc@ Mahoney (Mahoney) is the appointed Chairman of the

Village=s AMayor=s Advisory Panel on Wellness@ and an appointed Commissioner to the Village=s

ALong Range Plan Commission.@

29. Defendant Cathy Maloney was hired by the Village of Tinley Park to provide

marketing services for ADowntown Tinley@ and assist the MainStreet Commission.

BACKGROUND AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Defendant Zabrocki=s Political Organization

30. This lawsuit results from the unconstitutional activities of the longstanding and

deeply entrenched political machine headed by Mayor Edward J. Zabrocki, Jr. For over thirty-

three (33) years, he and the named Defendants and others at various times, have denied

opposition persons or parties, and the voters of the Village generally, their rights to free speech

and equal protection of the laws through a pattern and practice of activities, policies, customs and

usages aimed at advancing their political and personal interests while stifling the federal

constitutional rights of opponents and non-supporters, including, specifically, the Plaintiffs.

31. Zabrocki had, and has, a personal and political interest in retaining his position as

Village Mayor/President. For instance:

a.) In or about April 2005, the Village Board approved a Village ordinance increasing

Zabrocki=s taxpayer funded monthly salary from $833 in April of 2005 to $3,288 in May of 2005.

After Zabrocki was re-elected in an uncontested election in April 2005, he retired from other full-

time employment.


10

b.) In July 2009, Zabrocki purchased a new home from a real estate developer, Crana

Homes, Inc., which builds new homes in the Village. Crana Homes, Inc. purchased Zabrocki=s

old home and in October 2009 sold it at a loss to the daughter of Michael Levikas, a member of

the Tinley Park Police Department Police Pension Board appointed by Zabrocki. To facilitate

the sale of Zabrocki’s old home to Levikas= daughter, Crana Homes, Inc. purchased a

condominium titled in the name of Michael Levikas, his wife, daughter and son-in-law. Levikas=

daughter and son-in-law then purchased Zabrocki=s old home. A check of public records

indicates that the only previously-owned properties purchased by the developer were Zabrocki=s

old home and the Levikas’s condominium. Further, as of January 2014, this condominium is still

owned by Crana Homes, Inc.

c.) A Village ordinance authorizes the Village President to appoint and employ

engineers with the consent of the Village Board. Using this authority Zabrocki has for many

years appointed members of the firm of Robinson Engineering, where Zabrocki=s son is

employed as a Vice-President.4 Records filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections show that

Robinson Engineering and members of the firm make campaign contributions to Zabrocki’s

political committees.

d.) Zabrocki has approved the use of taxpayer funds to purchase tickets to various

events, including Christmas parties, fund raising dinners for elected officials and their spouses,

and golf outings.

4 According to Village Treasurer reports, payments to Robinson Engineering have been

the following: 2011 - $994,279; 2012 - $1,327,476; 2013 - $965,090.


11

e.) In approximately 2011, the Village was conducting an investigation of alleged

misconduct by the Village’s 911 Center Supervisor. Coincidentally, Eberhardt had received an

anonymous letter regarding the same matter that he forwarded to the Village. The 911 Center

Supervisor later was found by the Village to have committed Atime fraud, employee bullying@

and Aovertime manipulation.@ See attached Exhibit A. On information and belief, the 911

Center Supervisor was considering releasing information to Plaintiffs that could be potentially

politically damaging to Zabrocki=s Team Tinley in advance of the April 2013 Consolidated

Election. In response, Zabrocki approved a Anegotiated separation@ of the 911 Center Supervisor

that, by its terms, was meant to keep such information secret.

32. To finance his political activities, Zabrocki maintains two (2) Political

Committees: ACitizens for Ed Zabrocki@ and ACitizens to Elect Tinley Park Village Officials.

a.) Zabrocki is Chairman of his Political Committee(s). J. Bruning is the

Secretary/Treasurer of ACitizens for Ed Zabrocki.@

b.) ACitizens for Ed Zabrocki@ receives contributions from Village Vendors,

contractors, other business entities who either do or seek to do business with or within the

Village, liquor licensees, and persons who own or have an interest in such entities. Some of

these entities receive financial and other incentives from the Village.

c.) In a D-1 Statement of Organization for ACitizens to Elect Tinley Park Village

Officials,@ filed on February 1, 2013, with the Illinois State Board of Elections, R. Bruning is

listed as Chairperson and J. Bruning is listed as Treasurer.


12

d.) In an amended D-1 Statement of Organization for ACitizens to Elect Tinley Park

Village Officials,@ filed on March 27, 2013, with the Illinois State Board of Elections, Ward is

listed as Chairperson. Ward is the owner/president of a Village Vendor, ACrossmark Printing.@ J.

Bruning is still listed as Treasurer.

e.) ACitizens to Elect Tinley Park Village Officials@ receives contributions from

Village Vendors, contractors, other business entities who either do or seek to do business with or

within the Village, liquor licensees and persons who own or have an interest in such entities or

who receive financial and other incentives from the Village.

33. To further advance his personal and political agendas Zabrocki utilizes a system

of punishment and rewards. For example, in 2007, when Defendant Staunton was elected in an

uncontested election, state statute limited him to receiving a maximum of $5,000 for his

employment with the Village due to Staunton=s full-time employment with the CTA. Zabrocki

enlisted the aid of a state legislator to introduce a bill, that was ultimately passed, that raised the

salary ceiling CTA employees could receive from another governmental agency.

34. To advance their personal and political agendas Zabrocki and the other defendants

have instituted practices, promulgated policies and engaged in activities, at times using his/their

official authority that censor or prevent his/their opponents from exercising the right to speech in

violation of the federal constitution.


13

COUNT I

Misappropriation of Public Funds Without Due Process of Law:

Eberhardt and Weigand against Village, Zabrocki, Hannon, Rea, Seaman, Maher, Grady,

Staunton, Leoni and Bruning

35. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-34, as if set forth fully herein.

36. Article VIII, Section 1(a) of the Illinois Constitution provides, APublic funds,

property or credit shall be used only for public purposes.@ Moreover, the Fifth Amendment to the

United States Constitution, made applicable to the Village by operation of the Fourteenth

Amendment, prohibits the taking of property without due process of law.

1) Use of Village Hall to Announce Defendant Hannon=s State Senate Political Campaign

37. On or about January 4, 2012, Hannon announced that he would seek election as

Senator from the 19th

Illinois Senate District before a crowd of supporters in the municipally

owned Tinley Park Village Hall.

38. In attendance were three of Hannon’s fellow Village Board members, one of whom,

Defendant Leoni, read an endorsement letter for Zabrocki, who did not attend the announcement.

39. On information and belief, taxpayer funds were used to conduct this political event.

2) Use of Official Village Portraits in Defendant Elected Officials Campaign Materials

40. Before the April 2013 Consolidated Election, Zabrocki, Rea, Seaman, Maher and

Grady maintained a web site at Awww.TeamTinley.com,@ which displayed official portraits of the

Defendant elected officials. See attached Exhibit B.


14

41. The portraits were produced at APhotos By Rick,@a Village Vendor owned and

operated by Butkus. The portraits, which hang in the lobby of the Village Hall, and appear in

official Village publications, were purchased from Butkus with taxpayer funds.

42. Taxpayer funded photos of the Tinley Park Convention Center, other public places

and various Village events were used as Team Tinley campaign material in support of the

Defendants’ candidacies.

3) Official Village Report Regarding FOIA Cases

43. On February 12, 2013, two (2) weeks after Plaintiffs Eberhardt and Weigand and

other opposition candidates filed their complaint with the Illinois State Board of Elections

regarding the campaign use of official photos, Defendant elected officials and others discussed a

AFOIA update@ at an official Village meeting of the ACommittee of the Whole.@

44. At this meeting Rea presented information and released a report complaining of

the costs of Plaintiffs= FOIA requests. See attached Exhibit C.

45. On information and belief, substantial taxpayer funds and tax-funded services

were used by the Village to compile this information, and the report and the public presentation

of same.

46. After release of the report, the ACitizens to Elect Tinley Park Village Officials@

used it in its campaign literature to attack Plaintiffs Eberhardt and Weigand for Awasting taxpayer

dollars@ on AFreedom of Information requests.@

47. This campaign literature was distributed by M. Clark and E. Clark to patrons of

their AEd n Joe=s Restaurant and Pizzeria@ as part of the restaurant bill, and at other locations.


15

48. On information and belief, the preparation, release and publication of the village-

funded report was undertaken to advance the personal and political interests of Zabrocki and

other Defendants.

4) Political Work In Support of the Defendant Elected Officials’ Political Activities Is

Performed By J. Bruning on Village Work Time

49. In an affidavit filed in response to the complaint filed with the Illinois State Board

of Elections, J. Bruning, admitted that she did political work during Village work hours and that

she had accepted a campaign contribution for the Zabrocki political organization during business

hours at the Village Hall. See attached Exhibit D.

50. On November 16, 2013, the Chicago Tribune published an article entitled

AInsiders Get Special Access to Event Tickets.@ See attached Exhibit E.

51. Documents produced by the Village pursuant to FOIA requests have included

numerous documents and e-mails detailing coordination, ordering, pick-up and delivery of event

tickets for concerts held at the First Midwest Bank Amphitheater in Tinley Park as well as the

United Center and the concert venue at Northerly Island, Chicago, by J. Bruning on Village work

time. Further, documents indicate that the ticket deals were done on behalf of Zabrocki's

political group Team Tinley. See attached Exhibit F.

52. Zabrocki sanctioned J. Bruning’s activities on Village work time and at taxpayer

expense, which were undertaken and intended to help advance his personal and political interests.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray this Honorable Court:

A. Enter judgment against the Defendants to pay restitution to the Village for all

misappropriated taxpayer funds;


16

B. Enter an order declaring the actions of the Defendants to be in violation of the

United States Constitution;

C. Issue an injunction preventing the Defendants, their employees, agents,

appointees and servants from appropriating public funds for their own political or personal purposes;

D. Order the Defendants to pay the reasonable attorney fees of the Plaintiffs and

the costs of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988;

E. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages in amount to be determined; and

F. Grant the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be appropriate and

just.

COUNT II

Suppression of Free Speech:

Eberhardt and Weigand against E. Clark,

Weiner, Zabrocki, Mahoney, R. Bruning, and Maher

53. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-35, as if set forth fully therein.

54. Defendants have engaged in a pattern of practices intended to unconstitutionally

censor opposition while promoting the defendants= personal and political self-interests.

1) Interference With ATerm Limits@ Petition Circulators

55. In or about June through August 2012, volunteer petitioners circulated petitions to

have an advisory referendum question regarding term limits for Tinley Park Village officials

placed on the November 6, 2012 ballot.

56. At various times and on various dates at the Tinley Park Farmer=s Market held in

ADowntown Tinley,@ E. Clark and other persons unknown advised petition circulators to leave

the public premises and area of the Tinley Park Farmer=s Market.


17

57. In or about June through July 2014 volunteer petitioners circulated petitions to

have a binding referendum question regarding term limits for Tinley Park officials placed on the

November 4, 2014 ballot.

58. At various times and on various dates, persons known and unknown advised

petition circulators to leave the public premises and area of the Tinley Park Farmers’ Market and

Caribbean Block Party.

2) Interference With Nominating Petition Circulators

59. On October 28, 2012, the Village held the AHalloween Kiddie Boo-Bash@ at the

Village owned Oak Park Avenue Metra train station.

60. Eberhardt was a APresenting Sponsor@ of this event, during which he distributed

political palm cards for his campaign and materials that referred potential voters to the website,

Awww.TinleySparks.com.@

61. Additionally, volunteers circulated nominating petitions for Eberhardt and

Weigand.

62. E. Clark, who was appointed by certain of the Defendants to be AChairperson@ of

said event, and who had, at various times, circulated nominating petitions for the Defendant

elected officials at the Tinley Park Farmer=s Market and elsewhere, directed Plaintiffs= volunteers

to stop circulating the nominating petitions for Eberhardt and Weigand.

3) Interference With Campaign Activities and Censorship at the Tinley Park Senior

Center

63. The Senior Center is located in a municipally owned building.


18

64. In January and February 2013, the Tinley Park Senior Center held monthly senior

luncheons. In conjunction with these events Weigand and others attended for the purpose of

distributing campaign literature in the public areas at and adjacent to the Tinley Park Senior

Center.

65. Weiner ordered Weigand and the others to cease and desist and to leave the area,

and attempted to prevent seniors from accepting their campaign literature.

66. Weiner had occasion to approach Weigand, take some campaign literature and

destroy it in front of seniors as they entered the Senior Center.

67. Beginning in or about October 2012, Eberhardt had made numerous attempts to

join the Village Senior Center. Membership is open to all persons over the age of 55.

68. The Senior Center scheduled a Christmas luncheon in December 2012 with

Zabrocki in attendance.

69. On information and belief, Zabrocki had engaged in campaign activities at

previous Christmas luncheons and other Senior Center Events.

70. Weiner continually refused to provide Eberhardt with information or paperwork

necessary to join the Senior Center.

71. Weiner advised Eberhardt that she would permit him to purchase a luncheon

ticket as a non-member for this Aone special occasion.@

72. Weiner further advised Eberhardt that no political activity would be allowed at the

Senior Center yet:


19

a) she previously had allowed Leoni to circulate nominating petitions at the

December 2010 Senior Center luncheon; and

b) both prior to or after the 2012 Senior Center Christmas luncheon, Weiner

personally had circulated nominating petitions for Zabrocki at the Senior Center.

73. At subsequent Senior Center luncheons, Weiner attempted to interfere with

Weigand and others circulating campaign materials in the public areas outside and adjacent to the

Village of Tinley Park Senior Center.

4) Village Commissioner=s Refusal to Hold Chamber of Commerce “Candidate’s Forum”

74. Beginning in or about January 2013, persons on behalf of Plaintiffs Eberhardt

and Weigand and other opposition candidates contacted Mahoney, who was the President of the

Tinley Park Chamber of Commerce, in an effort to schedule a ACandidate=s Forum@ before the

April 2013 Consolidated Election. Mahoney was contacted multiple times via his Chamber of

Commerce and business e-mail addresses.

75. Traditionally, the Chamber of Commerce has conducted such ACandidate

Forums.@

76. On March 23, 2013, at the ADISCOVER TINLEY Expo,@ Eberhardt had a

conversation with Mahoney, who claimed not to have received any e-mails requesting a

ACandidate=s Forum.@ Mahoney further refused either to schedule a forum or to give speaking

time to Eberhardt and Weigand and other opposition candidates at the March 28, 2013, Chamber

of Commerce meeting.


20

77. Thereafter, on November 21, 2013, the Tinley Park Chamber of Commerce held a

ACandidates Forum@ in advance of the March 2014 primary election.

78. On information and belief, Mahoney’s actions in 2013 before the April 2013

Consolidated Election were calculated and intended to support Zabrocki and other Defendant

elected officials, all of whom had declined any invitation to debate the issues in advance of this

election.5

5 Documents produced by the Village of Tinley Park pursuant to a FOIA request indicate

that on April 17, 2013 Defendant Zabrocki approved using taxpayer funds to pay for a

congratulatory type ad for Mahoney in a Jaycee publication. In December 2013, Zabrocki

approved using taxpayer funds to pay for materials and labor to light Christmas trees for the

Chamber of Commerce placed in ADowntown Tinley@ for which the Chamber sold advertising

sponsorships to raise funds. See attached Exhibit G.

5) Retaliation by the Village Zoning Administrator

79. Prompted by a complaint made by Eberhardt, on the morning of March 25, 2013,

the Village Public Works Department removed a 4' by 4' political sign for Zabrocki and Team

Tinley from a public parkway.

80. Later on March 25, 2013, R. Bruning began political sign enforcement actions.

81. Zabrocki and R. Bruning were observed driving around together in R. Bruning=s

vehicle.

82. Eberhardt received numerous phone calls and complaints from private individuals,

who had displayed campaign signs for Eberhardt and Weigand and other opposition candidates,

that they were being approached by R. Bruning, who demanded their signs be removed.


21

83. On information and belief, R. Bruning used Village resources to obtain

information concerning private residences that displayed political signage supporting Eberhardt

and Weigand and other opposition candidates. He then used this information in order to harass

and intimidate their owners and occupants to remove these campaign signs.

6) Intimidation by Defendant Maher

84. On or about April 4, 2013, Maher telephoned the operator of the restaurant

located in the Village=s Oak Park Avenue Metra train station.

85. The operator of the restaurant contacted the FBI regarding the phone call and the

perceived threats by Maher. See attached Exhibit H.


A. Enter judgment for plaintiffs Eberhardt and Weigand and against the

defendants E. Clark, Weiner, Zabrocki, Mahoney, R. Bruning and Maher for damages in an amount

to be determined.

B. Enter an order declaring the actions of the Defendants to be in violation of the

United States Constitution;

C. Issue an Injunction barring the Defendants, their employees, agents,

appointees and servants from engaging in activities that would discourage or prevent opposition

political candidates, citizens and voters from openly discussing their political views;

D. Order these Defendants to pay the reasonable attorney fees of the Plaintiffs

and the costs of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988;


22

E. Grant the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be appropriate and

just.

COUNT III

Suppression of Free Speech and Denial of Equal Protection Relating to Tinley Expo:

Plaintiffs against the Village, Zabrocki, J. Bruning, Rea, Seaman,

Maher, Staunton, Leoni and Grady.

86. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-34, as if set forth more fully set forth

herein

87. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states in pertinent part

that, ACongress shall make no law [] abridging the freedom of speech [.]@ The First Amendment

is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

that states in pertinent part, ANo State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person

of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.@

88. The Village holds an annual ADISCOVER TINLEY Community Awareness

Expo@ (Expo) at the Tinley Park Convention Center, a public venue which it owns. The Expo is

organized, managed and operated by the Village Community Resource Commission, whose

members include various Village vendors.

89. In January 2013, the Village, through its Community Resource Commission and

employees, communicated with Eberhardt and other Abusiness or community leader[s=]@ to solicit

their participation at the 2013 Expo. One such communication stated that the goal of Expo Ais to


23

provide an opportunity for businesses and organizations to showcase the services available to our

community@ and that the Expo was intended to provide Aan opportunity for a face-to-face meeting

with members of our community to advertise your product or service.@ See attached Exhibit I at

page I-1. The Expo reservation form advises that, ANo political groups or campaigning will be

permitted at this event,@ (bold in original) (see attached Exhibit I at page I-3), but the terms

Apolitical group@ and Acampaigning@ are not defined.

90. The Village=s prohibition of Apolitical groups@ and Acampaigning@ at Expo

discriminates against individuals based on their viewpoint. Participants, vendors, Village

citizens and members of the general public, who attend Expo, are thus prohibited from exercising

their right to speech in violation of the First Amendment.

91. On January 8, 2013, Eberhardt, Weigand, and two candidates for the office of

Village Trustee, all of whom opposed Zabrocki and other ATeam Tinley@ candidates in the

upcoming April 2013 Consolidated Election, informed the Village Board that their campaign

committee wanted to obtain booth space at the 2013 Expo.

92. On February 8, 2013, the Village rejected Plaintiffs= request for booth space,

informing them that Athe prohibition on political activity at this event will be enforced against all

participants, including incumbents running for office.@ Thus, Plaintiffs were prohibited from

expressing their political views in opposition to Zabrocki and other Team Tinley candidates at

the 2013 Expo.

93. Meanwhile, the Village historically has been given such booth space at Expo.

Before the 2011 municipal election, Zabrocki, through his assistant, J. Bruning, directed that the


24

Village=s booth be located in, Athe first slot,@ and in the, Amiddle of the convention center,@ so as

to,Abe the first area people see.@

94. At the 2013 Expo, the Village again had its booth located in the Afirst slot,@

adjacent to the main entrance. The Village booth displayed a large banner referring to Zabrocki

and various elected officials, including Team Tinley 2013 candidates.

95. United States Congressman Bobby Rush also had a booth at the 2013 Expo.

96. Before the April 2013 Consolidated Election, and at the time of the Expo,

Zabrocki, Rea, Seaman, Maher and Grady maintained an election/campaign Facebook page

entitled ATeam Tinley 2013.@ A photograph of these defendants posed with the official Village

Expo banner and Village booth was posted to the ATeam Tinley 2013@ Facebook page. On

March 23, 2013, a Facebook posting invited potential voters to, AMeet and Greet Team Tinley

today at the Discover Tinley Community Expo!@ See attached Exhibit J.

97. While prohibiting Plaintiffs from campaigning or engaging in political activity at

Expo, the Village permitted defendants Zabrocki, Rea, Seaman, Maher and Grady to campaign

and engage in political activity at Expo. Further, by permitting Team Tinley candidates to utilize

its Expo banner and Expo booth in order to promote their candidacies, the Village gave Zabrocki

and other Team Tinley candidates special and preferential treatment.

98. Defendants Zabrocki, and the other elected official Defendants and Defendants

Framke, M. Clark, Ward and Maloney each had a personal and a political interest in thwarting

the exercise of free speech at the 2013 DISCOVER TINLEY Expo while advancing their own

personal and political interests.


25

99. Defendants Zabrocki, Rea, Seaman, Maher and Grady used their positions as

elected officials for the Village to prohibit political speech and to deny Plaintiffs, and the citizens

and voters of the Village, their constitutional rights to freely speak, to peaceably assemble and to

consult for the common good, all for the advancement of their own personal and political

interests.

100. The Defendants= actions in prohibiting speech based on speaker’s viewpoint

alone denies the Plaintiffs their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States for

which Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. '1983 and '1988.

101. The Defendants= actions in prohibiting Plaintiffs’ speech based on viewpoint

alone, while simultaneously permitting the Defendant elected and appointed officials to engage

in political speech, denied the Plaintiffs their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United

States, including equal protection of the law, and violated 42 U.S.C. '1983 and '1988.

102. The Defendants= actions in prohibiting speech based on viewpoint alone also

denied the citizens and voters of the Village their rights as guaranteed by the United States

Constitution for which Defendants are liable to the citizens and voters of the Village of Tinley

Park under 42 U.S.C. '1983 and '1988.

103. The Defendants= actions in prohibiting speech based on viewpoint alone while

simultaneously permitting the Defendant elected and appointed officials to engage in political

speech, denied the citizens and voters of the Village their rights as guaranteed by the United

States Constitution the for which Defendants are liable to the citizens and voters of the Village

under 42 U.S.C. '1983 and '1988.


26

104. The Defendants misuse their official positions to wrongfully deny the Plaintiffs,

citizens and voters of the Village their federal constitutional rights to speak, to peaceably assembl

and to consult for the common good.

105. As a proximate cause of these Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have been denied

the free exercise of their right to speak and equal access to voters and citizens in the Village.

Voters and citizens in the Village have been denied the opportunity to have free and open debate.


A. Enter an order declaring the actions of the Defendants to be in violation of

the United States Constitution;

B. Issue an Injunction preventing the Defendants, their employees, agents,

appointees and servants from taking any actions that unlawfully restrict the Plaintiffs, and any

Village resident or voter from assembling together, consulting together for the common good,

making known their opinions or participating in the political process.

C. Enter judgment for the Plaintiffs and against the Village, Zabrocki, J.

Bruning, R. Bruning, Rea, Seaman, Staunton, Leoni, Maher and Grady for damages in an amount

to be determined;

D. Order the Defendants to pay the reasonable attorney fees of the Plaintiffs



just.


27

COUNT IV

Suppression of Free Speech and Denial of Equal Protection: Downtown Tinley Website

Plaintiffs against Defendant Elected Officials, Maloney and Framke

106. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege 1-35 as if more fully set forth herein.

107. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraph 92 as if more fully set forth herein.

108. The Village MainStreet Commission (MSC) was established by ordinance. Its

mission is to create an atmosphere in “Downtown Tinley” that is conducive to small business

growth. The MSC also makes recommendations to the Village Board on various applications for

assistance from “Downtown Tinley” businesses and merchants, e.g. the AFacade Improvement

Program.@

109. The area of the Village designated ADowntown Tinley@ is on Oak Park Avenue

from roughly 165th

Street to 183rd

Street, including areas to the east and west of Oak Park

Avenue.

110. Beginning in or about April 2011, the Village contracted with Findzall Marketing,

whose managing partner, Maloney, would assist the MSC with marketing services promoting

ADowntown Tinley.@ Maloney had Astrategy calls/e-mails/meetings w/Donna Framke and

Michael Clark [defendant M. Clark], “and “participat[ed] in MainStreet Commission and other

meetings related to Downtown Tinley.@

111. On behalf of the Village, Maloney developed a ADowntown Tinley” website and a

separate Downtown Tinley Facebook page.

112. Maloney’s acts on behalf of the Village in providing professional marketing

services in accord with duties imposed upon her by contract with the Village, her assumption of


28

these duties, and the actions of the officials in delegating governmental functions to her clothed

her actions with the authority and color of state law.

113. In or about October 2012, Eberhardt met with Maloney, who informed him that

Eberhardt Law Office must cease posting on the ADowntown Tinley@ Facebook page because it

was common knowledge that Eberhardt was circulating nominating petitions for the April 2013

Consolidated Election and therefore his postings were political messages.

114. Maloney thereafter unilaterally and without prior notice to Eberhardt deleted

certain posts of Eberhardt Law Office from the ADowntown Tinley@ Facebook page.

115. In addition, the ADowntown Tinley@ website would not recognize or advertise

TinleySparks, Inc. in the same manner that it recognized and advertised other contributors.

116. The actions of the Defendant elected officials, employees and members of the

MainStreet Commission with regard to the ADowntown Tinley@ website is part of a pattern of

unconstitutional practices and activities engaged in by the Defendants intended to censor

opposition while advancing the personal and political interests of the Defendants.

117. In or about November 2012, the Village announced new Facebook policies. In

addition, on November 1, 2012, the MSC approved a new and more expansive Awebsite

sponsorship structure,@ that extended beyond serving “Downtown Tinley” and would involve

web pages, an electronic newsletter and e-mail features.

118. Plaintiffs intended to use these technologies to communicate their views to a

larger audience. On information and belief, Zabrocki, the other elected officials, and M. Clark,

Ward, Framke and Maloney suppressed the sponsor program’s implementation until after the


29

April 9, 2013 Consolidated Election in order to advance their personal and political interests. 6

At the August 21, 2013 MSC meeting, Framke finally distributed a printed ADigital Sponsorship

Agreement,@ thereby announcing implementation of the sponsorship program.

119. However, the Village and other defendants then used the revamped Downtown

Tinley “website sponsorship structure” and new Facebook policies to censor Plaintiffs’ views in

violation of their constitutional rights. The Defendants’ use of these policies and structures is

part of an ongoing pattern of unconstitutional practices and activities that are intended to advance

their personal and political interests.

120. The Law Offices of Stephen E. Eberhardt was a AProud Sponsor@ of the

ADowntown Tinley@ website basically from its inception until November 2013. See attached

Exhibit K. To gain such recognition Eberhardt made donations to ADowntown Tinley.@

121. On or about August 23, 2013, Eberhardt, on behalf of TinleySparks, contacted

Framke to inform her that TinleySparks intended to participate in the sponsorship program.

122. On September 3, 2013, TinleySparks, Inc. paid its sponsorship participation fee to

Framke.

6 Monthly meeting minutes of the MainStreet Commission contain no discussions

regarding the delay.

123. On October 2, 2013, the fee was returned by Framke to Eberhardt, who was told

that Adue to lack of participation [] we will not be moving forward with the promotion.@

Documents produced by the Village pursuant to a FOIA request indicate that when the Village

did not sell the total number of event sponsorships for such things as “Music in the Plaza” and


30

the “Kiddie Boo Bash” due to lack of participation, the Village did not cancel any events but

either reduced costs or simply held the events.

124. The failure of the ADigital Sponsorship Program@ was not mentioned at either the

September 18, 2013 or October 16, 2013, MSC meetings.

125. In or about November 2013, the Village removed Eberhardt Law Offices’s

sponsorship recognition from the ADowntown Tinley@ website.

126. On January 8, 2014, Plaintiff TinleySparks, Inc. donated three (3) $50 ADowntown

Tinley@ restaurant gift certificates for the Village’s use as monthly prizes to assist its marketing

efforts in the ADowntown Tinley@ area. Mahoney accepted these certificates at the ADowntown

Tinley@ meeting.

127. On January 20, 2014, a ADowntown Tinley Insider@ newsletter was sent to

ADowntown Tinley@ businesses seeking donations. It stated that the donor’s Acompany name and

a link to the website will be included in the >winner= section of the e-mail campaign.’@ See

attached Exhibit L.

128. Despite its donation, TinleySparks has not been recognized as a prize donor. See

attached Exhibit M.

129. On January 31, 2014, anAExperience Downtown Tinley@ electronic newsletter was

sent to subscribers. It attributed a donation of two (2) $25 gift certificates to Eberhardt Law

Offices when, in fact, TinleySparks made this donation. The newsletter provided no link to

TinleySparks, Inc. See attached Exhibit M, at page M-8.


31

130. At 10:45 a.m. on January 31, 2014, the error was noted to Maloney in an e-mail.

See attached Exhibit N, at page N-1.

131. Maloney responded that AIt was an honest mistake,@ (see attached Exhibit N at

page N-2), while acknowledging that she knew the donations were from Plaintiff TinleySparks,

Inc. See attached Exhibit N, at page N-3.

132. That same day, an AAMENDED: Experience Downtown Tinley@ newsletter was

distributed, which contained the correction of an error regarding Defendant Clark=s Ed n Joe=s

Restaurant and Pizzeria=s promotion. However, there was no similar correction of the “honest

mistake” regarding TinleySparks. See Exhibit O.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:




appointees and servants from preventing the Defendants, their employees, agents, appointees

and servants from using their social media instruments to intimidate, suppress or discriminate

against opposition candidates and voters who share the opposition viewpoint. .

C. Enter judgment for the Plaintiffs and against the Village, Zabrocki, ,Rea,

Seaman, Staunton, Leoni, Maher, Grady, Maloney and Framke for damages in an amount to be

determined;




32


just.

COUNT V

Censorship and Disparate Treatment on the Downtown Tinley Facebook Page:

Eberhardt and TinleySparks against E. Clark, M. Clark, and the Elected Officials

133. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 111-12 as if more fully set forth herein.

134. The Village’s original ADowntown Tinley@ Facebook page was Aexclusively for

the promotion of dining, events, shopping and services throughout Downtown Tinley Park.@

Emphasis added. Further, the Village invited ADowntown Tinley Park businesses and Tinley

Park organizations… to become a publisher/administrator and post directly to the Downtown

Tinley Wall about dining, events, shopping and services.@ Emphasis added. See attached

Exhibit L-4.

135. On November 5, 2012, Eberhardt was approved as an Aadministrator@ of the

ADowntown Tinley@ Facebook page and was thus authorized to post directly thereon.

136. From on or about August 6, 2013 until August 10, 2013, Plaintiff TinleySparks,

Inc. posted ALikes@ on various ADowntown Tinley@ Facebook pages. Interested parties were

invited to link directly to the TinleySparks website.

137. Meanwhile, Ed n Joe=s Restaurant and Pizzeria, owned and operated by M. Clark

and E. Clark, maintains its own Facebook page.

138. On or about August 16, 2013, the Ed n Joe=s Facebook page posted a false

warning to viewers: ADon=t click on the tinleysparks its (sic) a virus that shares with all your

contact=s! (sic).”


33

139. M. Clark and E. Clark either placed this false information about TinleySparks on

their business Facebook page or allowed the false information to be posted by someone else.

140. Between September 1 and September 11, 2013, on behalf of the Law Offices of

Stephen E. Eberhardt and TinleySparks, Inc., Eberhardt posted the following to the ADowntown

Tinley@ Facebook page: a Labor Day holiday message; a contest to win Chicago White Sox

tickets for the September 11, 2013 AFirst Responders Night;@ the availability of TinleySparks,

Inc. AChild Safety Signs;@ a September 11th

Remembrance; and a contest for tickets to the AHalf

Way to St. Patrick=s Day@ Chicago White Sox game.

141. On information and belief, in response to these postings, prior to September 18,

2013, various Defendant(s) formulated and implemented a Anew@ Facebook policy.

142. Thereafter, at the September 18, 2013 MSC meeting, M. Clark distributed a copy

of a Anew@ ADowntown Tinley@ Facebook policy.

143. One Anew@ Facebook policy deleted Aservices@ from its list of authorized uses,

affecting both Eberhardt’s law business and TinleySparks.

144. Whereas previously, a designated administrator, such as Eberhardt, could post

directly to the Downtown Tinley Facebook page, a Anew@ policy gave the MSC’s ASocial Media

Subcommittee” sole authority to select the messages to be posted and the ability to post the

messages that it chose to the Facebook page. However, if a merchant or organization wanted his

postings to be “shared” on the ADowntown Tinley@ Facebook page, they first had to contact

ADowntown Tinley@ via e-mail.


34

145. Minutes of MSC meetings prior to the September 18, 2013, meeting make no

reference to any discussion about these Anew@ Facebook policies. Further, at the September 18,

2013, MSC meeting M. Clark and others were appointed as members of the “Social Media

Subcommittee,” but the meeting minutes are silent in terms of how the members were appointed.

146. The Defendants do not apply the Anew@ policy consistently.

147. The inconsistent application of the Anew@ policy results in the denial of Plaintiffs=

rights as guaranteed by the First and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

148. As a proximate cause of the conduct of these defendants, these Plaintiffs were

impeded in their efforts to communicate with the voting and consuming public.

149. Eberhardt continued to post to the Downtown Tinley Facebook page until

November 11, 2013, when he was removed as an administrator.

150. On November 4, 2013, Photo=s by Rick directly posted an advertisement to the

ADowntown Tinley@ Facebook page.

151. On November 5, 2013, Plaintiff TinleySparks, Inc. posted on the ADowntown

Tinley@ Facebook page.

152. Although Plaintiff=s November 5, 2013, posting should have appeared ahead of

the November 4, 2013 posting of Photos by Rick on the ADowntown Tinley@ Facebook page,

Defendant Butkus’s post remained Apinned@ ahead of it, thereby relegating TinleySparks’

chronologically later posting to an inferior position. On November 11, 2013, after Eberhardt’s

removal as an administrator, the ADowntown Tinley@ Facebook page Ashared@ the Bailey=s Bar


35

and Grill=s posting celebrating Veteran=s Day, despite the fact this posting was not Aretail

oriented@ as required by the Village’s Anew@ Facebook policy.

153. Bailey=s Bar and Grill is closely aligned with the Defendant elected officials, who

held a post-election party there the night of the April 2013 Consolidated Election. However,

records filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections fail to note any expenditure by the Team

Tinley campaign committee for the party or any Ain kind@ campaign contribution from Bailey=s to

Team Tinley or Zabrocki. In 2009, Bailey=s Bar and Grill received $35,000 from the Village

pursuant to the AFacade Improvement Program,@ following the recommendation of the MSC and

the approval of the Village Board.

154. On four (4) occasions in November 2013, following Eberhardt’s removal as an

administrator, he was forced to file complaints to get the “Downtown Tinley” Facebook page to

share TinleySparks’s postings of contest and product information. Before the filing of this

lawsuit, ADowntown Tinley@ never shared a posting by either the Law Offices of Stephen E.

Eberhardt or TinleySparks, Inc. absent a specific request that such postings be Ashared.” Since

this lawsuit was filed, the Village has posted one Law Offices of Stephen E. Eberhardt posting to

its Facebook page.

155. “Downtown Tinley” has regularly Ashared@ others’ postings on its Facebook page

without being requested to take this action.

156. On November 29, 2013, at or about 10:45 a.m., TinleySparks posted on its

Facebook page views relating to Zabrocki=s comments at a Village Board meeting on the issue of

term limits in Tinley Park.


36

157. At or about 2:30 a.m. on November 30, 2013, Ron Bailey, owner of Bailey=s Bar

& Grill, posted the following comment on the TinleySparks Facebook page, AHey Fucktards, we

already have term limits. It=s called an election!!!!@7

158. The practice of the Social Media Subcommittee has been to ignore Plaintiffs=

requests to Ashare@ postings when it involves the postings to the TinleySparks Facebook page

critical of Zabrocki.

7 Bailey subsequently removed his posting sometime between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. on

November 30, 2013.

159. For example, on November 30, 2013, at 8:25 a.m. Plaintiff TinleySparks, Inc.

requested ADowntown Tinley@ to share a post about ASmall Business Saturday@ and the A$100

Christmas Cash Contest.@ Yet, two (2) minutes later, at 8:27 a.m., ADowntown Tinley@ instead

shared a posting by J. Bruning’s Heather Haus Florist that was previously posted to the Heather

Haus website on November 29, 2013. At 11:04 a.m., TinleySparks sent ADowntown Tinley@ a

second request to share its post. ADowntown Tinley@ did not respond or share the TinleySparks

post.

160. On information and belief, the Village did not share the TinleySparks post

because it was critical of Zabrocki and because it contained the Ron Bailey’s crude and vulgar

post to TinleySparks.

161. ADowntown Tinley@ discriminates in favor Zabrocki and his supporters by

choosing to share their postings on its Facebook page.


37

162. On information and belief, Zabrocki and other Defendants agreed to censor

TinleySparks simply by failing to share its posts. The TinleySparks Facebook page’s postings

were no different than postings of Zabrocki=s friends and political supporters, which were shared.

The Defendants’ actions prevented interested parties from directly linking to TinleySparks’

Facebook page, which contained constitutionally protected content and viewpoints.

163. On January 20, 2014, Eberhardt received the ADowntown Tinley Insider@ online

newsletter via e-mail that claimed, Aall posts following the new guidelines will still be shared or

posted on the Downtown Tinley Facebook page [.]@ See attached Exhibit L-4.

164. Thereafter, TinleySparks, Inc. posted messages concerning the availability of

AChild Safety Signs,@ AChildPrint ID Kits,@ and ARadar Loan Program,@ yet, these postings were

not shared with the public by ADowntown Tinley.@

165. The absence of any discernible standards to guide the Subcommittee’s posting

decisions renders its Anew@ Facebook policies unconstitutional.

166. The Defendants’ persistent refusals to Ashare@ links to the Eberhardt Law and the

TinleySparks Facebook pages with the public while regularly sharing their own postings, violates

the Plaintiffs’ right under the First and the Fourteenth amendments to the United States

Constitution.

167. On their face and as applied, the Village’s Anew@ Facebook policies also amount

to an official custom, usage, and practice which, as enforced by the Defendants, violates the

Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, as well as the rights of other similarly situated persons.


38

168. The Defendants= actions denying the Plaintiffs’ rights also violate 42 U.S.C.

'1983 and '1988.

169. The Defendants’ use of their official position to deny the Plaintiffs their rights as

guaranteed by the First and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

warrants the grant any other prayer for relief against the Defendants individually in this case.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:




appointees and servants from preventing the Defendants, their employees, agents, appointees

and servants from using their social media instruments to intimidate, suppress or discriminate

against opposition candidates and voters who share the opposition viewpoint. .

C. Enter judgment for the Plaintiffs and against the Village, Zabrocki, ,Rea,

Seaman, Staunton, Leoni, Maher, Grady, E. Clark and M. Clark for damages in an amount to be

determined;




just.


39

COUNT VI

Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage:

Eberhardt and TinleySparks against

Maloney, E. Clark, M. Clark, and Butkus

170. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-34, 56-78, 108-32, and 134-69 as if

more fully set forth herein.

171. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectancy that their reputation and visibility would be

enhanced, consequently resulting in new clients for Eberhardt and supporters for TinleySparks.

172. These Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs= expectancy, but intentionally,

maliciously and unjustifiably joined with the Village and its elected officials and interfered with

Plaintiffs’ political and commercial expression.

173. As a proximate cause thereof, plaintiffs were damaged in their persons and their

business.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court:

A. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages against the Defendants Maloney,

E. Clark, M. Clark, and Butkus in an amount to be determined; and

B. Grant the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be appropriate and

just.

COUNT VII

Specific Injunction

All Plaintiffs against All Defendants

174. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-35, 60-66, 114-152, and 154-93, as if

more fully set forth herein.


40

175. The Defendants have repeatedly and continuously transgressed upon Plaintiffs in

the exercise of their First Amendment rights to express opposing viewpoints, discriminated

against them because of those viewpoints and have sought to injure Plaintiffs personally and

professionally, while using or appropriating municipal funds and resources to do so.

176. Plaintiffs have been irreparably injured and have no adequate remedy at law.

177. The voters and taxpayers of the Village will be faced with the issue of term limits

for the defendant elected officials in the November 2014 election and certain members of

Zabrocki’s political organization will be up for re-election in April 2015.

178. The granting of the injunction will prevent Defendants further constitutional

violations from tainting upcoming elections and will serve the public interest.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an order:

A. granting a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the

Defendants, their employees, agents, appointees and servants from appropriating public funds for

their own political or personal purposes;

B. granting a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction barring the

Defendants, their employees, agents, appointees and servants from engaging in activities that

would discourage or prevent opposition political candidates, citizens and voters from openly

discussing their political views;

C. granting a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the

Defendants, their employees, agents, appointees and servants from using public funds, resources


41

or facilities to intimidate, suppress or discriminate against opposition candidates and voters who

share those viewpoints;

D. granting a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the

Defendants, their employees, agents, appointees and servants from using their social media

instruments to intimidate, suppress or discriminate against opposition candidates and voters who

share the opposition viewpoint.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen E. Eberhardt

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

STEPHEN E. EBERHARDT

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN E. EBERHARDT

16710 S. Oak Park

Tinley Park, IL 60477

(708) 633-9100

GARY RAVITZ

ERIC S. PALLES

RAVITZ & PALLES, P.C.

203 N. LaSalle, Suite 2100

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 558-1689
