Joel Brodsky Lawsuit Against Patch, Chicago Tribune and Others
-
Upload
orlandparkparch -
Category
Documents
-
view
4.167 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Joel Brodsky Lawsuit Against Patch, Chicago Tribune and Others
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