IN THE CIRCUITCOUNTY

Joel A. BrodskY,

couRT OF COOK COUNTY' rLLrNOrsDEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION

Pla in t i f f ,

V .

. . ! j " " f ? i J 1 , r f . i q . : f t 3! ' i ! J L U ' " . i a d { u

. - - : - _ L l i u - 1 ' / i a * u f , t L

CASE NO. T .: =E i_: ',i : i-:"$L . b'e:- "' ' ;j:" ;;i..l{i* !-

JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDSteven A. Greenberg, ind iv idual ly )and d/b/a Steven A. Greenberg and )Assoc ia tes , L td . r dD I l l i no i s )Corporat ion, Steven A. Greenberg, )L td . , a D j - sso l ved I l - l i no i s )Corporat ion, Steven A. Greenberg )and Assoc ia tes , L td . , an I l l i no i s )Corporation, Tribune ComPanY, a )Fo r iegn CorPora t i on , S tacY S t . )Cla i r , ind iv idual lY and as an )agent and emPloyee of Tribune )Company, AOL, Inc. , a Delaware )Corporat ion, d /b/a AOL Patch, the )Pa tch , t he Pa tch .com ' t he Jo l i e t )Patch and Shorewood Patch, Patch )Media Corporat ion, a Delaware )Corporat ion d/b/ a the Patch, and )Joseph Hosey, ind iv idual lY, and )as agent and edi tor o f the Patch, )the Jo l ie t Patch and the Shorewood)Pa tch , )

)D e f e n d a n t s . )

COMPI,AINT

NOW COMES Pla int i f f , Joel A. Brodsky, by h is at torney '

wal ter Maksym, and compla in ing of Defendants s teven A.

Greenberg, ind iv idual ly and d/b/a Steven A' Greenberg &

Assoc ia tes , L td . , d /b /a s teven A . Greenberg L td . and S teven

A . G reenbe rg , L td . , a D isso l ved I l I i no i s CorPora t i on ,

S teven A . Greenberg and Assoc ia tes , L td ' , dh I l l i no i s

Corporat ion, the Tr ibune Company, a For iegn Corporat ion '

and St ,acy St . Cl -a i r , ind iv idual ly and as repor ter '

emp loyee , and agen t o f t he T r ibune Co ' , AOL ' I nc ' ' a

i: ' "91: - - . : .

- ^.:Ti

]'r{l::lk ' . " . rr.rl-.j'*':-:; {} -{1i';' Fr!\ r , . . . j . , . .

'.,., ;r

tr.'(]3

il5 .y?*n " rfft #r''a r--r l-**g l 1 ' r

F"*l{ i**"1

:5i I

ti {",u"if^)

Delaware Corporat ion, d /b/a AoL Patch, the Patch, the

Patch.com, the Jo l - ie t Patch and shorewood Patch, Patch

Media Corporat ion, a Delaware Corporat ion d/b/a the Patch,

and Joseph Hosey, ind iv idual ly and as agent and edi tor o f

the Patch, the ,Jo l ie t Patch and the. Shorewood Patch, and

a l l eges as . f o l - l ows :

COUNT I(DefamatJ-on Against the Greenberg Defendants)

1. At a l l t imes re levant , Joel A ' Brodsky

( . .Brodsky, , ) was and cont inues to be an at torney duly

l icensed by the Supreme Cour t o f I l l ino is to pract ice l -aw

and does business as the Law Of f ice of Joel A. Brodsky in

and about Chicago l l l - ino is .

2. At a I I t imes re levant , s teven A. Greenberg

("Greenberq") was and cont inues to be an at torney duly

l j -censed by the Supreme Cour t o f I l l ino is to pract ice 1aw

and d id bus iness as S teven A . Greenberg & Assoc ia tes , L td .

and S teven A . Greenberg , L td . , a D isso l - ved I l l i no i s

Corpo ra t i on , and S teven A . Greenberg and Assoc ia tes , L td . ,

an I l - l i no i s Corpo ra t i on , ( co l l ec t i ve l y "Greenberg , L td . " ) ,

in and about Chicago I l l ino is . Greenberg and Greenberg Ltd.

are here inaf ter somet imes referred to co l lect ive l -y aS " the

Greenberg Defendants" .

3 . At a l l t imes re levant , Greenberg was the so le

owner, d i rector and dominant a l ter €9o, agent and employee

o f S teven A . Greenberg & Assoc ia tes , L td .

4. At a l l t imes re levant , the Tr ibune Company, a

For iegn Corpo ra t i on , ( t he "T r ibune Co . " ) d id bus iness i n

and about Chicago I l l ino is as the owner and publ isher of

the Chicago Tr ibune a Newspaper hav ing a worLd-wide pr in t

and In ternet c i - rcu lat ion.

5 . A t a l l t imes re levan t , S tacy S t . C la i r ( *S t .

C la i r " ) , was emp loyed by and was ac t i ng as a repo r te r ,

agent and employee of the Tr ibune Co. in connect ion wi th

i ts publ icat ion of the Chicago Tr ibune in and about Chi -cago

I l l i no i s and i n te rna t i ona l l y . S t . C l -a i r and the T r ibune Co .

are here inaf ter somet imes referred to co l lect ive ly aS " the

Tr ibune Defendants.

6 . B rodsky , Greenberg and other at torneYs

rep resen ted Drew W. Pe te rson ( "Pe te rso ! r " ) , a re t j - red po l i ce

o f f i ce r , i n t he PeopTe v . Pe te rson , W i l l Coun ty Case No .

09CF1048 , an ex t reme ly h igh -p ro f i l e c r im ina l case wh ich

received years of ongoing in ternat ional media at tent ion,

where in Peterson was ind ic ted on the charge of the murder

in the f i rs t degree of h is th i rd wi fe , Kath leen Savio ( the

"Sav j -o Murde r Case" o r t he "Sav io Murde r T r i a l " ) , and found

gu i l t y o f t ha t cha rge by a j u ry on Sep tember 6 , 2012-

1 . On o r abou t Sep tember 24 , 2012 Greenberg , ac t i ng

in h is own name and d/b/a Greenberg, L td. , in tent , ional ly ,

de l iberate ly , mal ic iousty , but wi th knowledge that r or wi th

reck less d i s rega rd fo r t he fac t t ha t , subs tan t i a l l y a l l o f

the s tatements there in were fa l -se and mi-s leadj -ng,

publ ica l ly d is t r ibuted and publ ished to var ious and sundry

members of the press and media, i -nc lud ing but not l - imi ted

to S t . C la i r and the T r ibune Co . , a subs tan t i a l l y f a l se ,

scurr i lous, and mer i t less le t ter o f and concern ing Brodsky

( "Greenberg ' s Le t te r " ) , a copy o f wh ich i s a t tached he re to

as Exhib i t r \A" .

8 . Greenberg ' s Le t te r , wh ich i s subs tan t i a l l y f a l se ,

defamatory and mis leading, was compr lsed of a fa lse

narrat ive designed defame Brodsky as revenge for h is

at tempt to termj-nate h im as one of Peterson 's at torneys

because of Greenberg 's incompetence ' unpreparedness, and

lack of a t tent ion dur ing the t r ia l o f the sav io murder

case, and to avoid any personal responsl -b i l i ty and b lame

for the gui l ty verd ic t against Drew Peterson, because of a

menta l i l lness he suf fers f rom he could not psychologica l ly

bear negat ive media at tent ion occasioned by h is j -nvolvement

in the loss of such a h igh-prof i le cr iminal - case, and to

ass i s t h im in h i s p lan o f ach iev ing a ca ree r i n t he med ia '

Greenberg, s le t ter conta ins the fo l lowing fa lse ly accused

Brodsky o f :

a . ) be ing a l i a r ,

b . ) be ing inef fect ive, incompetent and inept lawyer ,

c . ) t h rea ten ing to revea l c l i en t ' s con f i dences '

d. ) threatening a former par tner , former co-counse] , and

Greenberg,

e. ) commit t ing legal malpract ice '

f . ) act j -ng j -n h is own sel - f - in terest to the detr iment of

a cl- j-ent, and

q.) o therwise having conf l - ic ts of j -n terest and engaging

in unprofess ional and uneth ica l conduct '

g . Fur therr oD or about December 73, 20L2 Greenberg,

act ing in h is own name and d/b/a Steven A. Greenberg, L td ' '

i n ten t i ona l l y , de l i be ra te l y , ma l i c i ous l y caused to be f i l ed

in the Savio Murder Case a "Memorandum In Support of

Cer ta in Issues Concern ing Conf l - ic t o f In terest and

Ine f fec t i ve Ass i s tance o f Counse l " (Greenberg 'S "Memo" ) ,

and then i n ten t i ona l l y , de l i be ra te l y , ma l i c i ous l y , w i th

knowledge that , o f wi th reck less d isregard for the fact

that , substant ia l ly a l l o f the s tatements there in were

fa lse and mis leading, and immediate ly af ter f i l ing the sa id

Memorandum Greenberg publ ica l ly d is t r ibuted and publ ished

the said Memorandum to various and sundry members of the

press and media, inc lud ing but not l imi ted to St . Cla i r and

the T r ibune Co . , know ing tha t i t was subs tan t i a l l y f a l se ,

scurr i lous, and mer i t less as i t . concerned Brodsky. A copy

of Greenberg 's Memo is at tached hereto as Exhib i t \ \8" .

10 . Bo th Greenberg ' s Le t te r and Greenberg ' s Memo

( "Greenberg ' s Le t te r and Memo" ) were so pub l i ca l l y

d is t r ibuted and publ ished wi thout the benef i t o f any l -awfu l

pr iv i lege. Even though Greenberg 's Memo was in i t ia l ly f i led

in a cour t proceeding, i t was thereaf ter de l iberate ly

publ ished by the Greenberg Defendants for publ ic ext ra-

jud ic ia l non-pr iv i leged d j -sseminat ion.

11. The Greenberg Memo is substant ia l ly fa lse and

mis leading in i ts ent i re ty , and as a whole is noth ing more

than a compel la t ion of fa lse, mis leading, and defamatory

accusat ions. The Greenberg memo conta ins fa lse ly accused

Brodsky o f :

a . ) be ing delus ional , j -nef fect ive, incompetent andinept lawyer ,

b . )

c . )

m is rep resen t i ng h i s p ro fess iona l qua l i f i ca t i ons ,

rou t i ne l y b reach ing a t to rney -c l i en t p r i v i l ege '

d. ) threatening to reveaL and leak ing at torney-c l ientcon f i dences ,

e . ) ac t i ng i n h i s own se l f - i n te res t t o t he de t r imen tof a c l - i -ent ,

f . ) j -n t roducing pr iv i leged hearsay at t r ia l that thecour t had barred the prosecut ion f romint roduci -ng,

g . ) so l i c i t i ng Pe te rson as a c l - i en t w i th pecun ia ryga in as a s ign i f i can t mo t i ve i n v io l -a t i on o f ,

h . ) m is rep resen t i ng h i sto Pe te rson ,

p ro fess iona l qua l i f i ca t i ons

r . ) encouraging a pre-indictment "media bLiLz" andsensa t i ona l i z i ng the ma t te r t o Pe te rson ' s ex t remedetr iment ,

j . )

k . ) o therwise having conf l ic ts of in terest andengaging in unprofess ional and uneth ica l conduct .

1 ,2. When the Greenberg Defendants d is t r ibuted and

publ ished Greenberg 's Let ter and Memo they knew or shoul -d

have know they would. a l -so be publ ished and posted onl - ine on

the In ternet for wor ld-wide d is t r ibut ion and v iewing.

13 . The pub l i c accusa t i ons con ta ined i n Greenberg ' s

Let ter and Memo, of and concern ing Brodsky, fa lse ly

descr j -bed, depic ted and imputed that he had engaged in

unprofess ional and uneth ica l behavior and misconduct by

being an inef f ect i -ve, incompetent , inept , d j -shonest ,

uneth ica l and unprofess ional - thereby imput ing the

commiss ion of a i l legal and cr j -minal - o f fenses to h im.

L4. Fol lowing the Peterson ' s convl -c t j -on, Greenberg

possessed a mot ive to l - ie and defame and d iscredi t lead

counsel - Brodsky, who he personal ly resented, ( the cause of

which wi l - l - be deta i led below) , in order to avoid any

responsib i l i ty for sa id convic t ion and to at tempt to sh i f t

the so le responsib i l i ty and b lame t .herefore to Brodsky, who

al lowed Greenberg to jo in the Peterson defense team only

af ter Greenberg repeatedly asked, lobbied and begged

Brodsky to a l l ow h im to ass i s t i n Pe te rson ' s de fense . One

o f t he reasons fo r t h i s was to e l im ina te B rodsky ' s chances

to render media commentary and to e l iminate compet i t ion

wi th h im in th is legaI market and dest roy h is long- t ime

at torney-c l - ient re la t ionship wi th Peterson.

s ign ing a publ ic i ty contract thereby creat ing aper se conf l ic t o f j -n terest , and

...-t

15. Fur ther , Greenberg of ten s tated to Brodsky and

others of h is dream of becomi-ng a media " ta lk ing head" and

tegal commentator on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, TruTV or other

nat ional TV or Cable network out le ts . He would of ten ta lk

of th is whi le hanging out a t TruTV media tent erected on

the Wi l l County Cour thouse dur ing Savj -o Murder Tr ia l , where

he could be focated dur ing the t r ia l , whi le wi tnesses were

on the s tand, and dur ing breaks instead of d j -scuss ing

s t ra tegy w i th co -counse l .

L6 . Greenberg ' s obsess ion w i th becoming a med ia

commentator was so overwhelming that both before and durj-ng

Savio Murder Tr ia l - , he expressed to Brodsky d isparaging and

condescending remarks regard ing, hat red fo t , and even

threats to , prominent Chicago at torney Karen Cont i wi th

whom he had became incensed when she obtained a commentator

posi t ion he coveted at FOX NEWS CHICAGO, as he saw her as

the reason he fa i l - ed to ge t t ha t pos i t i on .

t7 . The ent i re Greenberg Memo was d i rected to

Brodsky. Greenberg was thus not . act ing as an at torney

promot i -ng the best in terest o f h is c l i -ent , but i -nstead used

the post - t r ia l proceedings as a vehic le to at tempt to cover

up h is poor per formance dur ing the Savio Murder Tr ia l - , to

promote h imsel f , and to get vengeance against Brodsky who

he resen ted , ( f o r t he reasons tha t w i l l be de ta i l ed be low)

because he suf fers f rom a severe menta l - i l lness known as

pa tho log i ca l na rc j - ss i sm . (DSM IV TR 301 - .81 )

18 . Because o f sa id men ta l i l l ness Greenberg

i r ra t i ona l l y f i xa ted on and obsessed w i th ru in ing B rodsky ' s

profess ional - reputat ion because, among other th ings, he

resented and envied the at tent ion paid to Brodsky by the

press dur ing the Savio Murder Tr ia l r € IS h is menta l i l lness

caused h im to bel ieve that onJ-y he, and he a lone ' was

en t i t l ed to , and wor thy a t ten t i on and p ra i se o f o the rs .

19. On in format ion and bel ie f , Greenberg, due to h is

menta l j - l - lness, developed animus, hat red and resentment of

Brodsky which caused h im to ignore the best in terest o f

Peterson and become i r ra t ional ly f ixated and obsessed wi th

destroy ing Brodsky because, among other th ings, Brodsky,

a. ) prevented Greenberg f rom appear ing on a dai ly cable TV

segment feat .urJ-ng the t r ia l known as "Greenberg v . Karas"

on TruTv 's In Session program because i t was g iv ing away

de fense s t ra tegy , (wh ich a l so i n te r fe red w i th Greenberg ' s

personal in t imate, re la t i -onship wi th Beth Karas, the TruTv

repor ter in th is segment which he developed dur ing the

t r ia l to get more at tent ion for h imsel - f ) , b . ) prevented

Greenberg f rom t ravel ing to New York dur ing the t r ia l - to

appear on the Piers Morgan TV program to be in terv iewed

abou t de fense s t ra tegy , c . ) c r i t i c i zed Greenberg fo r

spending a great deal o f t ime in the press room at the

Courthouse dur ing the t r ia1, even when wj- tnesses for the

prosecut ion were on the s tand, instead of prepar ing for h is

c ross -exan ima t ions and a rgumen ts , d . ) , pub l i ca l l y d i sc losed

that Greenberg was unprepared for the cross-examinat ion of

w i tnesses and mak ing o f ob jec t i ons du r ing the t r i a l , and /o r

e. ) a t tempted to termj-na+-e Greenberg f rom the Peterson

de fense team a f te r t he conv i c t i on because o f Greenberg ' s

incompetence and unpreparedness, thereby depr iv ing

Greenberg of the one th ing in l i fe he wanted, people to pay

a t ten t i on to h im .

20 . Because he was no t ac t i ng j -n the bes t i n te res t o f

Pe te rson and because Greenberg ' s men ta l i l l - nesses caused

h im to be i r ra t i ona l l y obsessed w i th B rodsky , he fa l se l y

convinced Peterson that the quickest and easiest way to

obta in a reversal o f h is convic t ion resul t ing f rom the

Savio Murder Tr la l was to make bratant ly fa l -se and i l1-

considered a l legat ions of misconduct against Brodsky.

Because Peterson was fac ing the l - iker ihood of hav ing to

spend the rest o f h is l i fe in pr ison, he agreed to make

fa lse a l legat ions against Brodsky based on Greenberg, s

incorrect and i l t -conceived advice and counsel - .

2L . Greenberg ' s f a l se a l l ega t i ons j -nvo l ved , among

other th ings, the defense ca l l ing At torney Harry smi th

( "Smi th" ) to test i f y a t the Savi -o Murder Tr ia l - . Greenberg

s ta ted tha t i t was B rodsky ' s dec i s ion to ca l - l Smi th aga ins t

the vehement adv ice of h imsel f and others. However , in

t ru th and fact Greenberg and other members of peterson 's

defense team agreed that sml th shoul -d be ca l led as a

w i tness fo r t he de fense on th ree (3 ) sepa ra te occas ions the

day p r i o r t o and day sm i th was ca l ted . Because Greenberg ' s

menta l i l lness causes h im to bel ieve that he can never be

wrong, he ignored or forgot that there were two (2)

independent wi - tnesses, both at torneys, who were present and

heard and saw h im agree that smi th shourd be ca l - l -ed by the

Peterson defense. rndeed, when smi th was ca l led, Greenberg

escor ted h im in to the Cour t room.

22. On in format ion and bel ie f , Greenberg entered to

an agreement wi th s t . cra i r , an employee and agent for the

Tr ibune co. and a repor ter for the ch icago Tr ibune, under

which he leaked sealed and pr iv i leged in format ion to her

for her news stor ies concern ing the sav io Murder case, and

she j-n exchange promoted him j-n her art icles in a manner

which p lacated h is pathologica l - narc iss ism, thus making

hersel f and the Tr ibune in to Greenberg 's de facto publ ic

re l -a t ions agent . sa id agreement between st . c la i r and

Greenberg or ig inated in h is representat ion of ch i rd murder

Br ian Dugan in the widely publ ic ized and repor ted Dupage

County Nacarr ico murder case.

23 . On in fo rma t ion and be l i e f , as a pa r t o f sa id

agreement Greenberg leaked to St . C1ai r and the Tr ibune Co.

a copy of pres id ing Judge Stephen Whi te 's 20L0 sealed

hearsay hear ing decis ion in the Savio Murder Case, that was

leaked exc lus i -ve ly to St . Cl -a i r and the Tr ibune and no

other news repor ter , very shor t ly a f ter Greenberg jo ined

the Pe te rson de fense team. S t . C la i r ' s pub l i shed a r t i c l es

c lear ly show the promot i -on of Greenberg. She a lso had

access had to pr iv i leged in format ion in the Savio Murder

case, and sealed d iscovery documents in the Nacarr ico ch i ld

murder case, v ia Greenberg that no other repor ter had.

24. At a l - l - t imes re levant pr ior to the Greenberg

Defendants fa lse and defamatory s tatements Brodsky had a

good profess ional reputat ion in h is communi ty and has at

a1I t imes denied and cont inue to deny a l l o f sa id fa lse and

untrue accusat i -ons and ins inuat ions.

25. As prox imate a resul t o f one or more of the

Greenberg De fendan ts ' sa id ma l i c i ous , f a1se , P€ t se

defamatory accusat ions and statements made of and

concern ing Brodsky that imputed he had engaged in d ishonest

and unprofess ional - conduct he was caused to be wrongly held

up to great publ ic scorn, hat red, contempt , r id i -cu le,

humi l ia t . i -on, d is t ress, anguish, anx iety , d isgrace, and

su f fe r g rea t i n ju ry to h i s d ign i t y , honor , pe rsona l and

reputat ion, good name, profess j -on and occupat ion and was

thereby fa lse ly s t igmat ized and fur ther caused damage to

h is re l -a t ionship wi th Peterson, and h is other and

prospect ive c l ients and peers in the legal profess ion.

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS that a judgment be entered

in h is favor and against the Greenberg Defendants, jo in t ly

and severa l ly , for compensatory and puni t lve damages in

10

great excess

and for such

proper in the

I -25 .

of f i f ty thousand dol lars

o the r and fu r the r re l i e f

p remises .

($50 ,000 .00) ' cos ts ,

as may be jus t and

COUNT I I(Fa1se L ight in Publ ic EYe

Against the Greenberg Defendants)

Brodsky real leges paragraphs 1 though

Count I as paragraphs 1 through 25 of th is Count I I

f u l l y s ta ted he re in .

26 . At a l - l t imes re l -evant , the Greenberg Def endants

knew or should have known or recognized that when said

fa lse s tatements were made i t could oI would be l ike ly to

cause ha rm to the B rodsky ' s pecun ia ry i n te res ts .

27 . Tha t sa id fa l se s ta temen ts p laced B rodsky and h i s

law pract ice in a fa lse l ight in the publ ic eye thereby

causi -ng h im d i rect pecuniary foss to be suf fered as a

resul t o f sa id d isparagement inc lud ing lost prof i ts .

28 . The fa l se l i gh t i n wh ich the B rodsky was p laced

would be h igh ly of fens i -ve to a reasonable person.

29. The Greenberg Defendants are jo in t ly and

vi -car ious ly l - iab le for the damages thereby caused Brodsky

because Greenberg was at a l l - t imes act ing wi th in the scope

of h is agency and employment .

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS that a judgment be entered

in h is favor and against the Greenberg Defendants, jo in t ly

and severa l ly , for compensatory and puni t ive damages in

g rea t excess o f f i f t y t housand do l l a r s ( $50 ,000 .00 ) , cos t s ,

and such other and fur ther re l - ie f as may be just and proper

in the p remises .

COUNT I I ]( I l - l - ino is Decept ive Trade Pract ices ActCla im Against the Greenberg Defendants)

L -25 . B rodsky rea l l eges pa rag raphs 1 though 25 o f

25 o f

as i f

11

Count I as paragraphs 1 through 25 of th is Count I I I as i f

f u l l y s ta ted he re in .

26 . A t a l l t imes re levan t , t he l l l i no i s Decep t i ve

Trade Pract ices Act prov ides in re levant par t , "a person

engages in a decept ive t rade pract ice when, in the course

of h is or her bus iness, vocat ion, or occupat ion, the person

di -sparages the goods, serv ices, or bus j -ness of another by

fa l - se o r m is l -ead ing rep resen ta t i on o f f ac t . " 815 ILCS 570 /2

27. On in format ion and bel ie f , oFI or about aforesaid

dates, and in v io la t ion of the I l l ino is Decept j -ve Trade

Prac t i ces Ac t , 815 ILCS 5 I0 /2 , t he Greenberg De fendan ts by

Greenberg mal ic ious ly communicated to , St . Cla i - r , a

repor ter for the Tr ibune, hav ing reason to know h is

statements, o f and concern ing Brodsky, would be publ ished

there in to the publ ic and on the In ternet , that inc luded

Peterson and one or more other actual or potent ia l c l ients

of Brodsky, substant ia l ly the above speci f ied fa lse

statement and misrepresentat ion in d isregard for the i r

f a l s i t y , w i th the i n ten t t o ca l - l i n to ques t i on , h i s

competency, i n teg r i t y , 1ega1 ab i l i t y , sk i l l s ,

rep resen ta t i on , and se rv i ces .

28. The Greenberg Defendants made said fa l -se and

mis leading s tatements wi th the in tent to d isparage

Brodsky ' s p ro fess ionaL se rv i ces i n o rde r d i sc red i t h im and

his reputat ion and to in f l ic t pecuniary harm on h im so as

to deter and d issuade potent ia l c l ients f rom reta in ing or

doing busj -ness wi th h im and to dest roy the marketabi l i ty o f

h i s l ega l se rv i ces .

29. At a l l - t imes re levant , the Greenberg Defendants

knew or should have known that when made, sa j -d d isparaging

statements were compr ised of fa l -se or mis leading

representat ions of fact and that woul -d be l ike ly to cause

T2

harm to B rodsky ' s pecun ia ry .

30. At a l l - t imes re levant , the Greenberg Defendants

said fa lse communicat ions commerc ia l ly d isparaged Brodsky

in h is profess ion and business thereby causing h im d i rect

pecuniary loss to be suf fered by them as a resul t o f the

disparagement inc lud ing damage to h is profess ional

repu ta t i on , l os t p ro f i t s , l oss o f good w i l l and o the r

damages.

31. The Greenberg Defendants sa id decept ive t rade

pract ices have caused and wi l l cont inue to cause Brodsky

damages and i r reparable harm for which there is no adequate

remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS that th is Cour t enter a

judgment in h is favor as fo l lows:

A. f ind ing that the Greenberg Defendants have

engaged in a decept ive t rade pract ice wi th respect to

P la in t i f f s i n h i s bus iness and p ro fess ion ;

B. issu ing a pre l iminary and permanent in junct ion,

enjo in ing and prohib i t ing the Greenberg Defendants and

the i r agen ts , se rvan ts , emp loyees , o f f l ce rs , a t to rneys ,

successors and ass i -gns f rom commerc ia l ly d isparaged Brodsky

in h i s bus iness and p ro fess ion ;

C . award j -ng h im h i s l - os t p ro f i t s , l oss o f good w i l l ,

genera l , compensatory, economic, puni t j -ve and t reb le

damages against the Greenberg Defendants, jo in t ly and

severa l ly , as the proofs wi l - l - show at t r ia l , '

D. award ing h im costs against the Greenberg

De fendan ts , j o in t l y and seve ra l l y , and

E. grant ing h im such other and fur ther re l ie f

agaj -nst the Greenberg Defendants, jo in t ly and severa l ly , as

may be just and proper in the premises.

13

COUNT IV(Commercial- Disparagement

Against The Greenberg Defendants)

Brodsky real leges paragraphs 1 though

Count I as paragraphs 1 through 25 of th is Count IV

fu l l y s ta ted he re in .

26. At a l - l - t imes re levant the Greenberg Defendants,

were compet , i tors of Brodsky in the legal professJ-on

genera l l y and w i th respec t t o Pe te rson i n pa r t i cu la r .

27. Under l l - l ino is cof l rmon law, at a l l - t imes re levant ,

the Greenberg Defendants, as compet i tors of Brodsky in the

Iegal profess ion, had and owed h im a duty not to d isparage

him in connect i -on wi th h is bus j -ness, vocat ion, occupat ion

o r l ega l se rv i ces

28. On in format j -on and bel ie f , on or about September

24 , 2012 and December 13 , 20L2 the Greenberg De fendan ts

breached that duty by having in tent ional ly and mal ic ious ly

d i spa raged Brodsky ' s repu ta t i on , se rv i ces , and bus j -ness by

maki -ng sa id fa lse or mis l -eading s tatements.

29. The Greenberg Defendants communicated sa ld fa lse

o r m is lead ing s ta temen ts to S t . C1a i r , a repo r te r f o r t he

Tr ibune, knowing or hav ing reason to know h is s tatements,

of and concern ing Brodsky, would be repor ted and publ ished

there in and on the In ternet , which i t was, and to the

publ ic , that j -nc luded Peterson and one or more of h is other

actual or potent ia l c l - ients , substant ia l ly the above

speci f ied fa lse s tatement and misrepresentat ion in

d i s rega rd fo r t he i r f a l s i t y , w i th the i n ten t t o ca l l i n to

quest ion, the competency, and in tegr i ty , 1egal ab i l i ty ,

sk i l l - s , and rep resen ta t i on , and se rv i ces .

30. The Greenberg Defendants made said fa lse and

mis leading s tatements wi th the in tent to d i -sparage

r -25. 25 o f

as i f

L4

Brodsky ' s p ro fess ionaL se rv i ces i n o rde r d i sc red i t h im and

his reputat ion and to in f l ic t pecuniary harm on h im so as

to deter and d issuade potent ia l c l ients f rom reta in ing or

doing business wi th h im and to reduce the credib i l i ty and

marke tab i l i t y o f h i s 1ega l se rv i ces .

31. At a l I t imes re levant , the Greenberg Defendants

knew or should have known or recognized that when made,

said fa lse and d isparaglng s tatements were compr ised of

fa lse or mis leading representat ions of fact and that they

coul -d or woul -d be l ike ly to cause harm to Brodsky 's

pecun ia ry i n te res ts .

32. At a l l t imes re levant , the Greenberg Defendants

said fa lse and mis leading s tatements commerc ia l ly

d isparaged Brodsky in h is profess j -on and business thereby

causing h im d i rect pecuniary loss to be suf fered by them as

a resul t o f the d isparagement inc lud ing damage to h is

p ro fess iona l repu ta t i on , l os t p ro f i t s , I oss o f good w i l l

and other damaqes.

33 . The Greenberg Defendants sa id commerc ia l

dJ-sparagement caused and wi l - l - cont inue to cause Brodsky

damages and irreparable harm for which there is no adequate

remedy at law.

34 . The Greenberg De fendan t ' s f a l se and m is lead ing

statements commerc ia l ly d isparaged Brodsky wi th respect to

h i s l aw p rac t i ce , c l i en te le and p ro fess i -ona I repu ta t i on i n

genera l and Peterson in par t icu lar thereby causing h im to

suf fer d i rect pecuniary loss as a resul - t o f the

disparagement inc lud ing lost prof i ts , loss of good wi l l and

other damages.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTfFF PRAYS that th is Cour t enter a

judgment in the i r favor as fo l l -ows:

A. f lnd ing the Greenberg Defendants have

15

commerc ia l ly d isparaged h im in h is profess ion and business;

B . award ing h im l -os t p ro f i t s , l oss o f good w j - I l '

genera l , compensatory, economic, puni t ive damages agalnst

the Greenberg Defendants, jo in t ly and severa l ly , as the

p roo fs w i l l - show a t t r i a l ;

c . award ing h im costs against the Greenberg

Defendants jo in t ly and severa l ly ; and

D. grant ing h im such other and fur ther re l ie f

against the Greenberg Defendants, jo in t ly and severa l ly ' as

may be j us t and p rope r i n t he p remises .

COUNT V(Defamat ion Against the Tr ibune Defendants)

1 ' - 25 .B rodsky re -a l l egespa rag raphs l t hough25

count I as paragraphs 1 through 25 of th is count v I as

fu l l y s ta ted he re in .

26. Among the i r defamatory accusat ions against

B rodsky , as repo r ted by s t . c l a i r and the T r ibune co - ' on

o r abou t Sep tember 24 , 20L2 , pub l i shed i n the Ch icago

Tr ibune and on the in ternet , the contents of the Greenberg

Le t te r , oD December 13 , 2Ot2 they a l so pub l i shed i n the

Chicago Tr ibune and on the in ternet the contents of the

Greenberg Memo, knowing that the contents thereof were

untrue, fa lse and defamatorY.

21. The Greenberg Defendants d i rect ly prov ided the

Tr ibune Defendants wi th copies of the Greenberg Let ter and

Memo conta in ing the fa lse and defamatory accusat ions ' and

al -so prov ided copies of them to var ious other members of

the press and media for publ ic ext ra- jud ic ia l - non-

pr iv i - leged d isseminat ion, for the purpose of hav ing those

documents publ ished and posted onl ine for wor ld-wide

d is t r i bu t i on on the In te rne t .

o f

i f

T6

28. Among the i r defamatory accusat ions against

Brodsky, St . Cla i r and the Tr ibune Co. repor ted and

publ ished in the Chicago Tr ibune and on the In ternet on or

about September 24, 2012 and December 13, 20\2 ' they

j -ntent ional ly , mal ic ious ly , and wi th knowledge that the

statements were fa lse and mist reading or wi th reck less

disregard for whether sa id s tatements were fa lse and

mis leading, they publ ished the fu l - l - contents of the

Greenberg Let ter and Memo thereby making them avai lab le for

publ ic v iewing and downloading v ia the In ternet .

29 . As pa r t o f he r ag reemen t w i th Greenberg , S t .

Cla i r caused the Greenberg Memo and Greenberg Let ter to be

publ ished in the Chicago Tr ibune and on the Chicago Tr ibune

Internet s i te so as to reward Greenberg for prov id ing her

and the Tr ibune Co. wi th sealed, impounded and pr iv i leged

court documents in the Savio Murder Case and in the DuPage

County Nicar ico ch i ld murder case, and so as to assure that

he woul -d cont inue to prov ide her wi th those sealed and

impounded documents and privi leged informati-on.

30 . On in fo rma t ion and be l i e f , S t . C l -a i r caused the

Greenberg Memo and Greenberg Let ter to be publ ished even

though she knew, should have known, or had reck less ly

d isregarded whether or not they were t rue, because i t was

more impor tant to her to keep her source of exc lus ive

informat ion that was not avai lab le to any other repor ter

than i t was for her to repor t the t ru th. On i -n format lon and

bel ie f , in so doing, the Chicago Tr ibune edj - tors turned a

bl ind eye to what St . Cla i r was doing because i t wanted to

keep the f low of exc lus j -ve s tor ies that St . Cla i r prov ided

through her agreement wi th Greenberg for sealed and

impounded documents and privi leged information.

t7

31- Dur ing or about sa id t ime and dates the aforesaid

defamatory s tatements were publ ished by the Tr ibune

Defendants they mal ic ious ly communicated, pubr ished and/or

republ ished sa id defamat ions to representat ives, agents

employees and/or s taf f o f o ther var ious major media

organizat ions i -nc lud ing, among other th ings, ch icago area

and nat ional and in ternat ional newspapers, te l -ev is ion and

radj -o s tat ions, in ternet websi tes, rad io, and in ternet news

media, news wire serv ices, and unknown others, the fu l - l -

extent and nature of which cannot be determine without ful l_

d j -scovery.

32. At a l - l - t imes re levant pr ior to the Tr ibune

Defendants farse and defamatory s tatements Brodsky had a

good profess ional - reputat ion in h is communi ty and has at

a l r t imes denied and cont inue to deny a l - l - o f the the i r sa id

compla j -ned of accusat ions and ins inuat ions to be fa lse and

un t rue .

33. As proxJ-mate a resul t o f one or more of the above

descr ibed mal- ic ious, fa lse r p€ l^ se defamatory accusat ions

and statements made of and concerni-ng Brodsky that imputed

he had engaged in incompetent , uneth j -ca l - and d ishonest

conduct so as to in tent ional ly be held up to great publ ic

scorn, hat red, contempt , r i -d icu1e, humi_1iat ion, anguish,

anx ie t y , d i sg race r g red t i n ju ry to h i s d ign i t y , honor ,

personal and profess ional_ reputat j_on, good name,

occupa t ion , l i f e ac t i v i t i es and a f fa i r s .

34 . On in fo rma t ion and be l i e f , S t . C1a i r ,

ind iv idual ly and as a repor ter for the Tr j -bune co. , because

of her agreement wi th Greenberg, fa i led to proper ly

invest igate the factuar bas is of sa id defamatory

accusat ions against Brodsky or f ind out sa l ient and

re levan t f ac t s and fac to rs , such as Greenberg ' s men ta l

18

condi t ion, invest i -gate as to whether t 'he defamatory

accusat ions had were t rue or fa l -se and were or were not

based in fact , o I to , before launching the i r de l - iberate and

scurr i lous media at tack on h im, to at any t ime or in any

meaningfu l way make inqui ry to Brodsky in at tempt to f ind

out h is vers ion of the facts or a1 low h im to prov ide

re levant contradic tory in format ion wi th respect thereto.

St . Cla i r was acted in th is manner because she wanted to

keep the f low of sealed and impounded documents and

pr iv i leged in format ion her agreement wi th Greenberg

prov ided her as th is a l lowed her to be secure in her

employment and advance in her career.

35 . The T r ibune Co . i s j o in t l y and v i ca r i ous l y l i ab le

for the defamatory accusat ions and damages thereby caused

Brodsky because , E t a l l - t imes re levan t , S t . C la i r was

act j -ng wi th ln the scope of her agency and/or employment .

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS that a judgment be entered

in h is favor and against the Tr ibune Defendants, jo in t ly

and severa l ly , for compensatory and puni t ive damages in

g rea t excess o f f i f t y t housand do l r a r s ( $50 '000 '00 ) , cos t s '

and for such other and fur ther re l ie f as may be just and

proper in the premises.

COUNT VI(Fal -se L ight Against the Tr ibune Defendants)

l - -35 . B rodsky rea l l eges pa rag raphs 1 though 35 o f

Count V as paragraphs 1 through 35 of th is Count VI as i f

f u l l y s ta ted he re in .

36. At a l l_ t imes re levant , the Tr ibune Defendants

knew or should have known that when said fa lse s tatements

were made i t could or woul -d be l ike ly to cause harm

Brodsky ' s pecun ia ry i n te res ts and p lace h lm in a fa l se

l ight in the publ ic eye.

I Y

31 - Pursuant to her agreement wi th Greenberg, St .

Cl -a i r 's ar t ic le promoted h im and d isparaged Brodsky thereby

por t ray ing h im in a fa lse l ight in the publ ic eye.

38 . By p lac ing B rodsky and h i s l aw p rac t i ce i n a

fa lse l ight in the publ ic eye the Tr ibune Defendants

thereby caused h im d i rect pecuniary loss as a resul t o f

sa id d isparagement inc lud ing lost prof i ts , loss of good

wi l l - and other damages.

39. The Tr ibune Defendants are jo in t ly and

vj -car ious ly l iab le for the damages thereby caused Brodsky

because S t . C la i r was a t a1 I t imes ac t i ng w i th in the scope

of h is agency and employment .

40. The Tr ibune Defendants foregoj -ng defamatory

statements and conduct cast and por t rayed Brodsky in a

fa l se l i gh t i n t he pub l i c eye .

4 I . The fa l se l i gh t i n wh ich the B rodsky was p laced

would be h igh ly of fens ive to a reasonable person.

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS that a judgment be entered

in h is favor and against the Tr i -bune Defendants, jo in t ly

and severa l ly , for compensatory and puni t ive damages in

g rea t excess o f f i f t y t housand do l l - a r s ( $50 ,000 .00 ) , cos t s ,

and such other and fur ther re l ie f as may be just and proper

in the p remises .

COUNT VI I( I l l ino is Decept ive Trade Pract j -ces ActCla im Against the Tr ibune Defendants)

t -25 . B rodsky re -a l I eges pa rag raphs 1 though

Count I as paragraphs 1 through 25 of th is Count VI f I

f u l l y s ta ted he re in .

26 . At a l l t j -mes re levant , the I l l ino is Decept ive

Trade Pract ices Act prov i -des in re levant par t , "a person

engages in a decept ive t rade pract ice when, in the course

25 o f

as i f

20

o f h i s o r he r bus iness , voca t i on , o r occupa t ion , t he pe rson

disparages the goods, serv ices, or bus iness of another by

fa l - se o r m is lead ing rep resen ta t i on o f f ac t . " 815 ILCS 5 I0 /2

27. On in format ion and bel ie f , o f l or about September

24 , 2OL2 and December 13 , 20L2 , and i n v io la t i on o f t he

I l l i no i s Decep t i ve T rade P rac t i ces Ac t , 815 ILCS 510 /2 , t he

Greenberg Defendants by Greenberg mal ic ious ly communi-cated

to St . Cla i r , an employee, agent and repor ter for the

Tr ibune Co. , the Greenberg Let ter and Memo, hav ing reason

to know h is s tatements of and concern ing Brodsky would be

repor ted and publ ished by them in the Chicago Tr ibune and

on the In ternet , which i t was ' to the publ ic , and to one or

more of Brodsky 's other actual or potent ia l c l - ients in

d i s rega rd fo r t he i r f a l s i t y , w i th the i n ten t t o ca l l i - n to

ques t i on , h i s compe tency , i n teg r i t y , l ega1 ab i l i t y ' sk i l l s ,

rep resen ta t i on , and se rv i ces .

28. The Tr ibune Defendants made said fa lse and

mis leading s tatements knowing that to do so would d isparage

Brodsky ' s p ro fess j -ona l se rv i ces and d i sc red i t h im and h i s

reputat ion and in f l ic t pecuniary harrn on h im so as to deter

and d issuade potent ia l c l - ients f rom reta in ing or do ing

business wi th h im and to reduce the marketabi l i ty o f h is

lega1 se rv i ces .

29. At a l l t imes re levant , the Tr ibune Defendants

knew or should have known that when made, sa id fa lse and

disparaging s tatements were compr ised of fa lse or

mj-s leading representat ions of fact and that they coul -d or

wou ld be l i ke l y t o cause ha rm to B rodsky ' s i n te res ts hav ing

a pecun ia ry va lue .

30. St . Cla i r and the Tr ibune Defendants a l - l -owed the

Greenberg Memo and Greenberg Let ter to be publ ished even

though she knew or they were fa lse or wi th d isregard as to

2L

whether or not they were t rue, because i t was more

important to her and the Tr j -bune co. to keep the i r source

of exc l -us ive in format ion that was not avai labre to any

other repor ter than i t was for them to repor t the t ru th. on

informat ion and bel ie f , in so doing, the Tr j -bune edi tors

turned a b l ind eye to what s t . c l -a i r was doing because i t

wanted to keep the f low of exc lus j -ve s tor ies that s t . cra i r

prov ided through her agreement wi th Greenberg for sealed

and impounded documents and pr iv i leged in format ion.

31. At a l l t imes re levant , the Tr ibune Defendants

said farse publ icat ion and communicat ions commerc ia l ry

d isparaged Brodsky in h is profess ion and business thereby

causi -ng h im d i rect pecuniary loss to be suf fered by them as

a resur t thereof , inc lud ing damage to h is profess ional

repu ta t i on , l os t p ro f i t s , l oss o f good w i r r and o the r

damages.

32. The Tr ibune Defendants sa id decept ive t rade

pract ices have caused and wi l - l - cont inue to cause Brodsky

damages and i r reparable harm for which there is no adequate

remedy at l-aw.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS that th is Cour t enter a

judgment 1n h is favor as fo l lows:

A. f ind ing that the Tr ibune Defendants have engaged

a decept ive t rade pract ice wi th respect to p la in t i f fs in

business and profess ion, .

B. issu lng a pre l iminary and permanent in junct ion,

enjo in ing and prohib j - t ing the Tr ibune Defendants and the i r

agen ts , servants, € f f ip loyees, o f f i_cers, a t torneys,

successors and ass igns f rom commerc ia l ly d isparaged h im in

h i s bus iness and p ro fess ion ;

C . award ing h im l_os t p ro f i t s , l oss o f good w i l l ,

genera l - . compensatory, economic, puni t ive and t reb le

i-n

h i s

22

damages against the Tr ibune Defendants, jo in t ly and

seve ra l l y , as the p roo fs w i l l show a t t r i a l ;

D. award ing h im costs against the Tr ibune

Defendants, jo in t ly and severa l ly , and

E. grant ing h im such other and fur ther re l ie f

agaJ-nst the Tr ibune Defendants, jo in t ly and severa l ly , as

may be just and proper in the premis 'es.

C O U N T V I I I(FaIse L ight Against the Hosey Defendants)

L -25 . B rodsky re -a l l eges pa rag raphs 1 though

Count I as paragraphs 1 through 25 of th is Count IX

fu1 l y s ta ted he re in .

26 . A t a l l - t imes re levan t , AOL , Inc . ( "AOL" ) , was a

Delaware Corporat ion d/b/a AOL Patch, the Patch, the

Patch. com, the Jo l ie t Patch and the Shorewood Patch

(co l l - ec t i ve l y t he "Pa tch " ) , i n t he S ta te o f I l l i no i s .

21. At a l l t j -mes re levant , Patch Media Corporat ion

("Patch Media") was a Delaware Corporat ion d/b/a the Patch

in the S ta te o f f l - l i no i s .

28. At a l - l t imes re levant hereto, Joseph Hosey

( "Hosey" , who i s i n rea l i t y t he wors t t ype o f ye l l ow

journal is t and is in fact noth ing more than a bu1ly

masquerading as a journal - is t , was and cont inues to be an

agent of , and edj - tor o f the Jo l ie t Patch and Shorewood

Patch which is owned by AOL, Inc. , a Delaware Corporat ion

(*AOL"\ d /b/a AOL Patch and the ' tPatch" and the "Patch.com"

(co l l ec t i ve1y the "Pa tch " ) , a l -1 co l l ec t i ve l y he re ina f te r

re fe r red to as the "Hosey De fendan ts " .

29. At a l l t imes re l -evant hereto, Hosey authored,

posted or republ ished stor ies about and concern i -ng Peterson

and the Savio Murder Tr ia l - that were publ ished on the

Internet by AOL and Patch Media v ia the Patch on one or

25 o f

as i f

23

more of the fo l l -owing web s i tes, among others:

http:patch. com

ht tp: / / j o l ie t .patch. com/topics/Joe+Hosey

http: / / shorewoodiT .patch. com/topics/Joseph+Hosey

http : / /bo 7 ingbrook . patch . com

http: / /elnhurst .patch . com

ht tp : / / lemont . patch. com

ht tp: / /oakforest .patch. com

http : / / downe rsgrove . patch . com

http : / / ch icagoheight s . patch . com

ht tp: / /dar ien- i l - .patch. com

ht tp : / / h insdaTe .pa tch . com

http: / /burrr idge .patch . com

http : / / f rankfort. patch. com

http: / /homewood-f J-ossmoor.patch. com

ht tp: / / s tchar- les- iL .patch. com

http : / / geneva . patch. com

http: / /orl-andpark .patch. com

ht tp: / / t inLelpark .patch. com

ht tp: / /a lgonquin.patch. com

ht tp: / /g leneTTyn .patch. com

ht tp : / /wheaton. patch . com

ht tp : / / naperv i f Le. patch. com

ht tp : / / L i s l e . pa tch . com

ht tp: / / romeoviTLe .patch. com

ht tp : / /p7a in f ie 7d . patch . com

ht tp : / / Tagrange . patch. com

ht tp: / /oakLawn.patch. com

http: / /evergreenpark .patch. com

http : / / channahon-minooka . patch . com

ht tp: / /oswego .patch. com

http : / /mokena . patch. com

24

http : / /yorkvi 7 7e . patch. com

http: / /northbrook .patch. com

ht tp: / /pafos . patch. com

http: / /nontgomery.patch. com

ht tp: / /newlenox.patch. com

ht tp : / / oakpark . patch. com

30. On in format ion and bel ie f , a t a l l t imes re levant ,

Patch.com was a local and hyper local b log and websi tes

plat form owned by AoL and operated in r l - l - ino is and 23 other

states wi th ln the uni ted s tates by patch Media corporat i -on,

a Del -aware Corporat ion ( "Patch Media") d /b/a the . .patch, , .

Hosey, AOL and Patch Media are somet imes here inaf ter

co l l ec t i ve l y re fe r red to as the "Hosey De fendan ts " .

31 . I n o r abou t 2008 Hosey au tho red and had pub l i shed ,

con t ra ry to h i s p ro fessed se l f -po r t ray as an ob jec t i ve new

repor te r , a b iased and fac tua l l y f a l se book en t i t l ed "Fa ta l .

Vows: The Tragic Wives of Sergieant Drew Peterson" ("Fatal

Vows" ) wh ich , i n 2012 , was made j -n to a f i lm t i t Led "Drew

Peterson: Untouchable" ("Untouchabl -e" ) produced and

broadcast by L i fe t ime Enter ta inment serv ices, LLC d/b/a the

Li fe t ime Movie Network and A&E Telev is ion Networks, LLC.

32. On in format ion and bel ie f , in order to hype,

dramat ize, se l1 and prof i t promot ing Fata l_ Vows,

Untouchable, and sequels thereto, s tar t ing in 2009, and

cont inu ing on a regular bas is of a t l -east every month

thereaf ter (and every day dur ing the sav io Murder Tr ia l )

though January of 2013, Hosey in tent ional ly , knowingly and

ma l i c i ous l y and w i th reck less d i s rega rd fo r t he t ru th

authored, and AoL and Patch Media in conjunct ion wi th Hosey

and each other , in tent ional ly , knowingly and mal ic ious ly

and wi th reck less dI -sregard for the t ru th caused to be

publ ished on the Patch a in terconnected and cont inuous

25

se r ies o f f a l - se and m is lead ing s to r i es , f a l se and

mis leadj -ng s tatements, fa lse and mis leading repor ts , fa lse

and mis leading quotat ions, and fa lse and mis leading

innuendo , ( t he " fa l se and m is lead ing s ta temen ts " ) a l l o f

and concern ing Brodsky, which Hosey knew, and the other

Hosey Defendants and Patch knew or should have known to be

fa l se and m is lead ing .

33. At a l l - t imes re levant , the Hosey Defendants knew

or should have known that when said fa lse and mis leading

statements were made i t could or would be l ike1y to cause

harm to the in terests of the Brodsky having a pecuniary

val -ue and p lace h im in a fa lse l ight in the publ ic eye.

34 - That sa id fa lse publ icat ions p laced Brodsky and

his law pract ice in a fa lse l ight in the publ ic eye thereby

causing h im d i rect pecuniary loss to be suf fered as a

resul t o f sa id d isparagement inc lud j -ng lost prof i ts , loss

of good wi I I and other damages.

35 . Tha t du r ing the a fo resa id pe r iod , Hosey , and by

extension the Hosey Defendants, in what can only be

descr ibed as the worst type of ye l low journal ism, and in

fur therance thereof caused to be publ ished on the Patch a

interconnected and cont inuous ser ies of ar t i -c les which were

noth ing an in tent ional defamatory smear campaJ-gn against

Brodsky, publ ished wi th the in tent by Hosey to in jure

Brodsky ' s repu ta t i on and po r t ray h im in a fa l se l i gh t i n

the pub l i c eye .

36. In fur therance of th is smear campaign, Hosey

fa11ed to , and i n t ru th d idn ' t r ea l l y ca re to , p rope r l y

invest igate the factual bas is of the sa id defamatory

accusat ions agai -nst Brodsky, or f ind out sa l ient and

re levant facts and factors, invest igate whether the

defamatory accusat ions had were t rue or fa l -se or had any

26

basis in fact because Hosey d idn ' t care whether nor not

anyth ing he publ ished about Brodsky was t rue or not , as

long as i t was a defamatory smear of Brodsky.

37. Fur ther , before launching h is in tent ional - ,

de l iberate and scurr i lous media at tack on Brodsky, Hosey,

and the Hosey Defendants, never cared to or wanted to make

any meaningfu l or leg i t imate inqui ry in to the basis of what

they was publ ish ing, or even make a leg i t imate at tempt to

p rov ide a fa i r o r ba lanced ve rs ion o f t he fac ts , ox to

publ ish any re levant contradic tory in format ion wi th respect

the re to . Hosey ac ted i n t h i s manner because he i s , j - n f ac t ,

noth ing but a bul ly masquerading as a journal is t , who

bel ieves that he had a I j -cense to defame, and conduct an

intent ional - smear campaign against , Brodsky for h is own

perverse p leasure, whi le advancing h is l i terary and f i i_m

wr i t i ng ca ree r .

38. The Patch, Patch Media, AOL Patch, knew, or were

wi1 l fu11y b l ind to the fact that Hosey was engaging in the

worse type of ye l low journal ism, devoid of an t rue

journal is t ic s tandards, and in contravent ion of the i r

pub l i shed p ledge tha t Pa tch webs i tes ac t w i th j ou rna l l s t i c

in tegr i ty , and they a l - lowed Hosey to cont inual ly publ ish a

ser ies of ar t j -c l -es which any reader can easi ly recognize as

nothing more than a defamatory smear campaign by Hosey

aga ins t B rodsky .

39 . Tha t t he Hosey De fendan ts a re j o in t l y and

vicar ious ly l iab le for the damages thereby caused Brodsky

because Hosey was at a l l t imes act ing wi th in the scope of

h i s agency .

40 - The Hosey Defendants foregoing defamatory

statements and conduct cast and por t rayed Brodsky in a

fa l se l i gh t i n t he pub l i c eye .

27

4 ! . The fa l se l i gh t i n wh ich the B rodsky was p laced

would be h igh ly of fens ive to a reasonable person.

V{HEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS that a judgment be entered

in h is favor and against the Hosey Defendants, jo in t ly and

severa l ly , for compensatory and punj - t ive damages in great

excess o f f i f t y t housand do l l a r s ( $50 ,000 .00 ) , cos t s , and

such other and fur ther re l - ie f as may be just and proper in

the premj-ses.

COUNT IX( I l - l - ino is Decept ive Trade Pract ices Act

Cla im Against the Hosey Defendants)

I -AL. Brodsky re-a l leges paragraphs 1 though 4I

Count VI I I as paragraphs 1 through 38 of th is Count IX

i f f u1 l y s ta ted he re in .

42 . A t a l l t imes re levan t , t he f l l i no i s Decep t i ve

Trade Pract ices Act prov ides in re levant par t , "a person

engages in a decept ive t rade pract ice when, in the course

o f h i s o r he r bus iness , voca t i on , o r occupa t ion , t he pe rson

d ispa rages the goods , se rv i ces , o r bus iness o f ano the r by

fa l se o r m is lead ing rep resen ta t i on o f f ac t . " 815 ILCS 510 /2

43 - As s ta ted a fo resa id , s ta r t i ng i n on o r abou t

star t ing in 2009, and cont inu ing on a regular bas is of a t

least every month thereaf ter (and every day dur ing the

Savio Murder Tr ia l - ) though January of 20L3, Hosey

intent ional ly , knowingly and mal ic ious ly and wi th reck less

disregard for the t ru th authored, and AOL and Patch Media

in con junc t i on w i th Hosey and each o the r , i n ten t i ona l l y ,

knowingly and mal j -c ious ly and wi th reck less d isregard for

the t ru th caused to be publ ished on the patch a

i -n terconnected and cont i -nuous ser ies of fa lse and

mis lead ing s to r i es , f a l se and m is lead j -ng s ta temen ts , f a l - se

and mis leading repor ts , fa lse and mis leading quotat ions,

o f

A S

2B

and fa l -se and mis leading innuendo, ( the . ' farse and

mis leading s tatements") a l l - o f and concern ing Brodsky,

which Hosey knew, and the other Hosey Defendants and patch

knew or should have known to be fa l -se and misr-eading.

44 - The Hosey Defendants knew the fa l -se and mis leading

statements of and concern ing Brodsky, wourd be publ ished on

the Patch and on the rnternet , and thereby repor ted, which

i t was ' to the publ ic , and one or more other actual or

po ten t i a l c l i en ts o f B rodsky .

45 . The Hosey De fendan ts d id so w i th the i n ten t t o

cal - I in to quest ion, the competency and in tegr i ty o f

B rodsky ' s l ega1 ab i l i t y , sk i l - 1s and rep resen ta t i on , and

serv ices in order to in f l ic t pecuniary harm on h im so as to

det .er and d issuade current and potent iar c l ients f rom doing

bus iness w i th h im and to des t roy the marke tab i l i t y o f h i s

lega l se rv i ces .

46. The Hosey Defendants made said fa lse and

mis leading ser j -es of s tatements wi th the in tent to

d i spa rage B rodsky ' s p ro fess iona ] se rv i ces i n o rde r

d iscredi t them and h is reputat ion and to in f l - ic t pecuniary

harm on h im so as to deter and d issuade potent ia l c l ients

f rom reta in ing or do ing business wi th h im and to reduce the

marke tab i l i t y o f h i s l ega1 se rv i ces .

41. At a l - l t imes reLevant , the Hosey Defendants knew

or shouLd have known, or recognized that when made, the

said ser ies of fa lse and d isparaging s tatements were fa lse

or misreading and that they coul -d or woul -d be l ikery to

cause ha rm to B rodsky ,s pecun ia ry i n te res ts .

48. At aL l t imes re levant , the Hosey Defendants sa id

fa lse and mis leading communicat ions commerc ia lJ-y d isparaged

Brodsky in h is profess ion and busj -ness thereby causing h im

di- rect pecuniary loss to be suf ferec l by them as a resul t o f

29

the d isparagement inc lud ing damage to h is profess ional_

reputat ion, rost prof i ts , loss of good wi l - l - and other

damages.

49. The Hosey Defendants sa id decept ive t rade

pract ices have caused and wi l l cont inue to cause Brodsky

damages and i r reparable harm for which there is no adequate

remedy at l-aw.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTfFF pRAyS that th is Cour t enter a

judgment in h is favor as fe l - l_ows:

A. f ind ing that the Hosey Defendants have engaged in

a decep t i ve t rade p rac t i ce w i th respec t t o p la in t i f f s i n

h i s bus iness and p ro fess ion , -

B. issu ing a pre l iminary and permanent in junct ion,

enjo in ing and prohib i t ing the Hosey Defendants and the i r

agen ts , se rvan ts , emp loyees , o f f i ce rs , a t to rneys ,

successors and ass j -gns f rom commerc ia l ly d isparaged Brodsky

in h i s bus iness and p ro fess j -on , .

C . award ing h im los t p ro f i t s , l oss o f good w i l l ,

genera l , compensatory, economic, puni t ive and t rebte

damages against the Hosey Defendants, jo in t ly and

seve ra l l y , as the p roo fs w i l l show a t t r i a l ;

D. award ing h im costs against the Hosey Defendants,

j o in t l y and seve ra l l y , and

E. grant ing h im such other and fur ther re l ie f

against the Hosey Defendants, jo in t ly and severa l ly , as may

be jus t and p rope r i n t he p remises .

l -a in t i f

, h i sa

Wa1ter MaksymAttorney at Law2056 N. L i -nco1n AvenueChicago, IL 606L4-4525Te I : 3L2 -218-4475e-mail- : wmaksymGgmail . comCook Coun ty A t t y . No . 55061

31