case: 1:14-cv-00853 document #: 77-1 filed: 07/28/14 page...
Post on 09-Jul-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 1 of 42 PageID #:341
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. )
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 2 of 42 PageID #:342
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 3 of 42 PageID #:343
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@
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 4 of 42 PageID #:344
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 5 of 42 PageID #:345
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
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 6 of 42 PageID #:346
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 7 of 42 PageID #:347
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 8 of 42 PageID #:348
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 9 of 42 PageID #:349
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 10 of 42 PageID #:350
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 11 of 42 PageID #:351
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 12 of 42 PageID #:352
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 13 of 42 PageID #:353
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 14 of 42 PageID #:354
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 15 of 42 PageID #:355
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;
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 16 of 42 PageID #:356
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 17 of 42 PageID #:357
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 18 of 42 PageID #:358
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:
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 19 of 42 PageID #:359
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 20 of 42 PageID #:360
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 21 of 42 PageID #:361
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.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray this Honorable Court:
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;
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 22 of 42 PageID #:362
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
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 23 of 42 PageID #:363
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
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 24 of 42 PageID #:364
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 25 of 42 PageID #:365
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 26 of 42 PageID #:366
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.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray this Honorable Court:
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
and the costs of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988;
E. Grant the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be appropriate and
just.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 27 of 42 PageID #:367
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
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 28 of 42 PageID #:368
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
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 29 of 42 PageID #:369
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
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 30 of 42 PageID #:370
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 31 of 42 PageID #:371
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:
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 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;
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;
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 32 of 42 PageID #:372
32
E. Grant the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be appropriate and
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).”
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 33 of 42 PageID #:373
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 34 of 42 PageID #:374
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
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 35 of 42 PageID #:375
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 36 of 42 PageID #:376
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 37 of 42 PageID #:377
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 38 of 42 PageID #:378
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:
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 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;
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. Grant the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be appropriate and
just.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 39 of 42 PageID #:379
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.
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 40 of 42 PageID #:380
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
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 41 of 42 PageID #:381
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
Case: 1:14-cv-00853 Document #: 77-1 Filed: 07/28/14 Page 42 of 42 PageID #:382
top related