Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 1 of 32 PageID #:711

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
John Velez,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Chicago; Chicago Police Officers
Michael R. Bocardo, Michael Dyra, John A.
Cruz, Sam Cirone, Patrick O’Donovan,
Kriston Kato, Bradul A. Ortiz, Michael J.
Walsh, Victor M. Perez, D. Wolverton
(#20014), J. Botwinski (#20392), A.
Jaglowski (#20196), Sgt. D. Walsh, John
Farrell, and Unknown Officers; Cook County
Sheriff’s Department Detectives James Davis
and John Sullivan and Unknown Sheriff’s
Department Officers; Sheriff of Cook County
Thomas J. Dart, Cook County Assistant
State’s Attorney Megan Goldish; and Cook
County,

)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 18-cv-8144
) Honorable Marvin E. Aspen
)
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff John Velez, by his attorneys, Loevy & Loevy and the Law Office of Jennifer
Blagg, complains of Defendants City of Chicago; Chicago Police Officers Michael R. Bocardo,
Michael Dyra, John A. Cruz, Sam Cirone, Patrick O’Donovan, Kriston Kato, Bradul A. Ortiz,
Michael J. Walsh, Victor M. Perez, D. Wolverton (#20014), J. Botwinski (#20392), A. Jaglowski
(#20196), Sgt. D. Walsh, John Farrell, , and Unknown Officers; Cook County Sheriff’s
Department Detectives James Davis and John Sullivan and Unknown Sheriff’s Department
Officers; Sheriff of Cook County Thomas J. Dart, Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney
Megan Goldish; and Cook County, as follows:
Introduction

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 2 of 32 PageID #:712

1.

Plaintiff John Velez was wrongly convicted of the 2001 murder of Anthony

Hueneca and spent sixteen years unjustly imprisoned, starting at age 17, before he was
exonerated.
2.

Mr. Velez’s wrongful conviction was caused by the Defendants, who concocted a

false story that Mr. Velez had killed Hueneca in an “anniversary killing” of the death of his
uncle.
3.

Defendants’ wrongful case against Mr. Velez was built entirely on false and

coerced witness statements. No physical or forensic evidence of any kind connected Mr. Velez
to the murder.
4.

To perfect their plan to frame Plaintiff, Defendants coerced Mr. Velez’s pregnant

girlfriend, Christina Izquierdo, into signing a statement that tracked Defendants’ fabricated
“anniversary killing” story. Their plot was successful. Due to Defendants’ foul play, Mr. Velez
was convicted of murder and sentenced to 80 years in prison.
5.

Never giving up on proving his innocence, Mr. Velez worked tirelessly to show

that he had absolutely nothing to do with this crime.
6.

After newly-discovered evidence exposed the Defendants’ “anniversary killing”

theory as demonstrably false, the State took the extraordinary step of agreeing to vacate
Plaintiff’s conviction in December 2017.
7.

Plaintiff was finally cleared of the murder charge after over sixteen years

wrongfully behind bars. This lawsuit seeks redress for his injuries.
Jurisdiction and Venue
8.

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress Defendants’

deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights secured by the U.S. Constitution.

2

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 3 of 32 PageID #:713

9.

This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
10.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff resides in this judicial

district, the majority of the Defendants reside in this judicial district, and the events and
omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within this judicial district.
Parties
11.

Plaintiff John Velez is a 36 year old father of a 17 year old daughter. During his

wrongful incarceration of sixteen years, Mr. Velez earned a second GED and worked inmate jobs
in the commissary, as a maintenance technician, and as a warehouse manager.
12.

Defendant City of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation and is and/or was

the employer of each of the Defendant Officers. The City of Chicago is liable for the acts of the
Defendant Officers, which were undertaken within the scope of their employment for the City.
13.
Bocardo,
O’Donovan,

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Michael R.
Michael
Kriston

Dyra,
Kato,

John

A.

Bradul

Cruz,
A.

Sam

Ortiz,

Cirone,

Michael

J.

Patrick
Walsh,

Victor M. Perez, D. Wolverton (#20014), J. Botwinski (#20392),
A. Jaglowski (#20196), Sgt. D. Walsh, John Farrell, and other
unknown law enforcement officers (collectively, the “Defendant
City

Police

Officers”)

were

police

officers

in

the

Chicago

Police Department acting under color of law and within the scope
of their employment for the City of Chicago. The supervisory
defendants facilitated, condoned and approved the constitutional
violations committed by their subordinates.Defendant Sheriff of Cook
County Thomas J. Dart, in his official capacity, is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in Cook
3

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 4 of 32 PageID #:714

County. Under the provisions of the Illinois State Constitution and Illinois law, the Sheriff is
responsible for overseeing and operating the Cook County Sheriff’s Department Defendant
Sheriff of Cook County Thomas J. Dart is liable for the acts of the Defendants Davis and
Sullivan, which were undertaken within the scope of their employment for the Cook County
Sheriff.
14.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants James Davis and John Sullivan and other

unknown law enforcement officers (collectively, the “Defendant County Police Officers”) were
police officers in the Cook County Sheriff’s Department acting under color of law and within the
scope of their employment for the Cook County Sheriff. The supervisory defendants facilitated,
condoned and approved the constitutional violations committed by their subordinates. Defendant
City Police Officers and Defendant County Police Officers are referred to, collectively, as the
“Defendant Officers.”
15.

At all relevant times, Megan Goldish was an Assistant Cook County State’s

Attorney acting under color of law and within the scope of her authority. Goldish conspired with
the Defendant Officers, prior to the existence of probable cause to believe Plaintiff had
committed a crime, and while acting in an investigatory capacity, to fabricate evidence,
manipulate witness testimony, maliciously prosecute Plaintiff, and detain him without probable
cause for Hueneca’s murder.
16.

Defendant Cook County is a governmental entity within the State of Illinois and

includes as components its Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office and Cook County Sheriff’s
Police Department. Defendant Cook County employed Defendants Goldish, Sullivan, and Davis
at all relevant times. Defendant Cook County is a necessary party to this lawsuit.
The Crime

4

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 5 of 32 PageID #:715

17.

In the early morning hours of March 19, 2001, 26-year-old Anthony Hueneca was

tragically shot and killed while walking down the street in the Pilsen neighborhood of Chicago.
18.

Prior to the shooting, four friends—Micaela Gutierrez, Apolinar Mejia, Lorena

Ricardo, and Gustavo Rivera—stopped nearby at a house located in Latin Kings territory.
19.

Rivera went inside the house while Gutierrez, Mejia, and Ricardo waited in the

20.

The street was poorly lit—the lamp on the street was not operational and the

car.

closest operational light was far away.
21.

As Gutierrez, Mejia and Ricardo waited in the car, a man wearing a dark-blue,

hooded sweatshirt with his hood drawn over his head approached the car, pointed a semiautomatic gun at them and told them to “get ready to die.”
22.

Rather than shoot, however, the man said, “King killer, Queen killer, SD love,”

and left. “SD love” referred to a rival street gang, the Satan Disciples.
23.

Gutierrez, Mejia and Ricardo then drove away. While they were driving away,

they heard gunshots and saw men wearing dark-blue, hooded sweatshirts run down the street.
24.

Mejia then drove back to the area, because he worried that Rivera had been shot.

25.

Meanwhile, Rivera heard the gunshots while he was inside the house. He ran out

of the house to see who had been shot, and found Hueneca lying on the ground.
26.

When Defendant City Police Officers responded to the scene, they spoke with

witnesses including Ricardo, who told police that she had seen three to four Hispanic males in
dark clothing running away from the scene, but she could not identify them. No one at the scene
could provide any further description of the offenders.
City Police Officer Defendants’ Frame Up

5

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 6 of 32 PageID #:716

27.

After meeting with witnesses and conducting a canvas, the Defendant City Police

Officers had no suspect and no witness who could describe the perpetrator, so they decided to
pin the murder on someone.
28.

Defendant City Police Officers selected as their scapegoat Mr. Velez, who

happened to be at the police station at the same time that Defendant City Police Officers brought
Rivera, Ricardo, Gutierrez, and Mejia to Area 4 police station for questioning the night of the
Hueneca murder.
29.

Mr. Velez was not present at the scene of the Hueneca shooting and knew

absolutely nothing about it. He was at the police station to assist a friend.
30.

While waiting at the station, Mr. Velez was approached by Defendant Bocardo,

who questioned him about another crime that Mr. Velez had witnessed. Defendant Bocardo
wanted Mr. Velez to identify the perpetrator. Mr. Velez truthfully told Defendant Bocardo he did
not know who committed the crime. Defendant Bocardo, wrongly believing that Mr. Velez was
withholding information, sought revenge.
31.

Defendant City Police Officers, led by Defendant Detective Bocardo, a self-

described “gang specialist,” concocted a false story implicating Mr. Velez in the Hueneca
shooting.
32.

Defendant City Police Officers’ theory was that Mr. Velez was a Satan Discipline

who had killed Hueneca as part of an “anniversary killing” on March 19, 2001, to honor the
anniversary of the murder of his uncle, Gent Velez, who was killed on March 23, 2000.
According to Defendants, Gent Velez, too, was a Satan Disciple, and Hueneca’s shooting arose
from on-going gang war between the Latin Kings (Hueneca’s gang), and the Satan Disciples.

6

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 7 of 32 PageID #:717

33.

This story was entirely false. Furthermore, neither Mr. Velez nor his uncle was a

Satan Disciple. In fact, the Defendant City Police Officers knew that Mr. Velez’s uncle was a
member of an entirely different street gang, the Almighty Ambrose gang.
The Coerced Identifications
34.

Without any reason of any kind to believe that Mr. Velez had any involvement in

the Hueneca murder, but with animosity towards Mr. Velez as a suspected gang member,
Defendant Bocardo obtained a photograph of Mr. Velez and showed it to Mejia while
questioning him about the Hueneca shooting.
35.

Defendant Bocardo then indicated to Mejia that Velez was the perpetrator of the

Hueneca murder, showing him the photo of Velez, despite knowing that Mejia did not get a
sufficient look at the man with the gun at the car to describe him in any way, let alone identify
him.
36.

Defendant Bocardo’s presentation of Velez’s photograph in that manner was the

equivalent of a single photograph show-up and was unduly suggestive. Due to Defendant
Bocardo’s suggestive tactic, Mejia falsely identified Mr. Velez as the man who threatened her
and the others in the car before the Hueneca shooting.
37.

Next, one or more of the Defendant City Police Officers pressured Rivera, too, to

falsely identify Mr. Velez as the shooter. Defendant City Police Officers promised Rivera that
they would “help him out” with a recent conviction if he “cooperated” with them, or words to
that effect, by falsely identifying Velez.
38.

After pressure and promises exerted on him by the Defendant City Police

Officers, Rivera gave a false statement containing facts fed to him by Defendants. Rivera falsely
claimed that he when he came out of the house, he saw Mr. Velez wearing a dark-blue, hooded

7

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 8 of 32 PageID #:718

sweatshirt and following Hueneca. Rivera further falsely claimed that after he heard two shots
fired, he again saw Velez, this time running away as Hueneca lay on the ground. In fact, Rivera
had been inside the house during the shooting and had not seen the shooter at any time.
39.

One or more of the Defendant City Police Officers then went to Ricardo and

Gutierrez’s houses with a photo array that included the photograph of Mr. Velez taken by
Defendant Bocardo. Defendants manipulated and coerced the witnesses into falsely identifying
Velez as the man who threatened them before the shooting.
40.

Defendants suppressed or destroyed any evidence that they had coerced these

witnesses into implicating Mr. Velez in the Hueneca shooting.
Mr. Velez’s Arrest
41.

On March 25, 2001, Defendant City Police Officers arrested then seventeen year-

old Mr. Velez and took him into custody solely on the basis of the coerced and fabricated witness
identifications. Mr. Velez truthfully denied any involvement in the shooting.
42.

At the time of the shooting, Mr. Velez was at his cousin’s house doing laundry, as

he told Defendant City Police Officers when he was questioned. Defendants never bothered to
investigate Mr. Velez’s alibi witnesses.
43.

Mr. Velez’s cousin, Alexis Robles, corroborates his account. She testified that Mr.

Velez was dropped off at her house on the night of March 18, and she and Mr. Velez stayed up
washing clothes and socializing, with Mr. Velez spending the night at her house.
Defendants Coerce Christina Izquierdo
44.

Defendant City Police Officers needed more to support their purported

“anniversary killing” motive for the murder. They brought Defendant County Police Officers and
Defendant ASA Meghan Goldish in on the conspiracy.

8

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 9 of 32 PageID #:719

45.

Together, Defendants coerced Mr. Velez’s girlfriend, Christina Izquierdo, into

falsely implicating Mr. Velez in the Hueneca shooting.
46.

Defendant County Police Officers had encountered Izquierdo days earlier when

they were investigating a shooting at a cemetery in which Izquierdo had been shot in the back.
They interviewed Izquierdo at the hospital while she was being treated for a gunshot wound, and
found out she was Velez’s girlfriend and also five months pregnant with Velez’s child.
47.

Based on this encounter, on March 26, 2001 Defendant County Police Officers

picked Izquierdo up from her home and brought her to Area 4 detective headquarters for
questioning. Defendants fabricated evidence that Velez had purportedly confessed to Izquierdo
while in front of the Defendant County Police Officers that he had committed the Hueneca
homicide.
48.

Defendants kept Izquierdo in a locked room by herself for approximately eight

hours and denied her request for an attorney. Defendants had no justification for holding
Izquierdo at the police station.
49.

Defendants interrogated Izquierdo about the murder. She told them truthfully that

she knew nothing about the murder, and certainly nothing about Mr. Velez’s involvement in it.
50.

Undeterred, Defendants coerced Izquierdo into falsely implicating Mr. Velez in

the crime, including by threatening to take Izquierdo’s daughter away from her and telling her
she could only leave the police station if she signed a statement implicating Mr. Velez.
51.

Defendant Goldish then prepared a fabricated statement that tracked the

“anniversary killing” story made up by the City Police Defendants and bolstered by fabrications
by the County Police Defendants. Defendant Goldish knew the “anniversary killing” story was

9

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 10 of 32 PageID #:720

false, as well as the purported identifications by Mejia, Gutierrez, Ricardo, and Rivera used to
buttress the false account.
52.

In the alternative, the scheme was perpetrated solely by the Defendant Officers,

who concealed it from Defendant Goldish and the prosecution.
53.

According to the false statement, Izquierdo alleged that on March 21, 2001, she

went to the cemetery to visit Mr. Velez’s uncle, who had died a year earlier. Izquierdo
supposedly was standing at the gravesite when she was shot. Izquierdo was taken to the hospital,
where Velez purportedly confessed that he was to blame for the gravesite shooting because he
had shot a Latin King the prior Sunday. Velez said that he shot the man because the Latin Kings
had killed his uncle.
54.

This story was false. Izquierdo was at the cemetery when she had been shot, but

she had been there to visit the grave of an acquaintance on his birthday. She was not there to visit
Velez’s uncle, whose grave was located on the opposite side of the cemetery and unmarked.
Furthermore, Velez never confessed to her at the hospital, or any time, that he was involved in
any way in the Hueneca shooting. Moreover, neither Mr. Velez nor his uncle was a Satan
Disciple.
55.

Defendants suppressed or destroyed any evidence that they had coerced Izquierdo

into implicating Mr. Velez.
Defendants City Police Officers and ASA Goldish Coerce Rivera to Falsely Claim to Have
Witnessed the Murder
56.

While one or more of the Defendants was interrogating Izquierdo, one or more

other City Police Defendants picked up Ricardo, Rivera, Gutierrez, and Mejia and brought them
back to the station to view in-person lineups that included Mr. Velez.

10

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 11 of 32 PageID #:721

57.

City Police Defendants continued to manipulate and coerce these witnesses into

falsely identifying Mr. Velez. Due to City Police Defendants’ misconduct, Ricardo, Gutierrez
and Mejia falsely identified Velez as the man who threatened to kill them before Hueneca was
shot.
58.

The misconduct continued with Rivera. As mentioned earlier, City Police

Defendants had induced Rivera to falsely claim to have not only been an eyewitness to the
murder, but have seen Velez supposedly approach Hueneca right before he was killed and
leaving the site of his body right after the murder.
59.

Knowing they had elicited a bogus account unlikely to stand up over time, City

Police Defendants proceeded to try to “lock in” Rivera to his story by having Defendant Goldish
take a handwritten statement from him that contained his false story.
60.

City Police Defendants and Defendant Goldish suppressed or destroyed any

evidence that they had coerced Rivera into writing a statement that implicated Mr. Velez,
including their documentation of his initial report that he had not witnessed the murder.
61.

Due to the false identifications procured by Defendants, Defendants were able to

charge Mr. Velez with first-degree murder of Hueneca.
Defendant Officers Withhold Exculpatory Evidence
62.

Through the actions above and others, Defendant Officers also produced a series

of false and fraudulent police reports and related memoranda, fabricated evidence, unduly
suggestive witness identification procedures, and manufactured witness statements, which they
inserted into their case file. These documents, which were used to show Plaintiff’s purported
connection to the crime, contained statements and described events that were fabricated and that
the Defendant Officers knew to be false. Defendant Officers prepared and signed off on these

11

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 12 of 32 PageID #:722

reports, both as investigators and as supervisors, despite their knowledge that the information
contained in those reports was entirely false. Simultaneously, the Defendant Officers withheld
from the prosecution and Mr. Velez’s defense documentation that would exculpate Mr. Velez,
including documentation of their suggestive witness identification procedures, their coercive
tactics, and exculpatory police reports and witness statements.
63.

Defendant Officers concealed the misconduct described above from Plaintiff and

his criminal defense attorneys.
64.

The Defendant Officers’ misconduct includes that of the supervisors, who knew

full well of Defendants’ misconduct and their fabrication of a case against Plaintiff. These
supervisors nevertheless intentionally ignored and approved Defendants’ misconduct, and
decided to make Plaintiff responsible for a crime he did not commit, rather than directing the
officers to go out and find the person who had shot Hueneca.
Plaintiff’s Conviction
65.

Mr. Velez’s trial for first degree murder began on October 7, 2002.

66.

No physical evidence was presented linking Mr. Velez to the scene of the

shooting, and there were no witness accounts—aside from the false procured ones—that placed
him at the scene.
67.

Mejia, Ricardo, Gutierrez, Rivera and Izquierdo all testified at Mr. Velez’s

criminal trial and presented the only evidence suggesting Velez’s guilt.
68.

Freed from the police station, Izquierdo recanted her inculpatory statement,

explaining that the statement was a lie that had been coerced by the police. Despite her
recantation, the statement was nevertheless read into evidence.
69.

After two hours of deliberations, the jury sent a note that they had reached an

12

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 13 of 32 PageID #:723

impasse. After the court instructed the jury to keep deliberating, the jury asked to see Rivera’s
handwritten statement and trial testimony; his was the only eyewitness claiming that Mr. Velez
had committed the crime.
70.

On October 15, 2002, based on Defendants’ fabricated evidence, John Velez was

wrongfully convicted of murder.
71.

Mr. Velez was sentenced to 80 years in prison for the crime.

72.

Absent Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff would never have been prosecuted for

or convicted of Hueneca’s murder.
Plaintiff’s Exoneration
73.

Plaintiff never stopped fighting to prove his innocence.

74.

In 2016, Plaintiff’s perseverance paid off. Mr. Velez learned that Rivera had

admitted that he did not witness the shooting, and had not seen Velez the night of the shooting.
Rivera stated that the only reason he identified Velez was because police told him if he
cooperated the State would “help him out” with his drug conviction.
75.

Armed with Rivera’s recantation, Plaintiff brought his case to court. After

conducting a thorough and independent investigation into Plaintiff’s claims, the State took the
extraordinary step of itself moving to vacate Mr. Velez’s conviction.
76.

On December 11, 2017, after Mr. Velez had spent more than sixteen years in

prison, the court granted the State’s request and Plaintiff walked free for the first time in over
sixteen years.
Plaintiff’s Devastating Injuries
77.

Entering prison at 17 years old for a crime he did not commit, Plaintiff suffered

immensely. He was wrongfully incarcerated for almost as long as he had lived outside of prison.

13

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 14 of 32 PageID #:724

78.

During his sixteen years of wrongful imprisonment, Plaintiff was deprived of the

ability to interact freely with his loved ones including his only daughter; to be present for
holidays, births, deaths and other life events; to pursue his passions and interests; to engage in
meaningful labor and develop a career; and to live freely, as an autonomous being.
79.

Instead, Plaintiff was detained in harsh, dangerous, and isolating prisons, branded

a murderer.
80.

As a result of his wrongful conviction and incarceration, Plaintiff must now

attempt to rebuild his life outside of prison, all without the benefit of the life experiences that
ordinarily equip adults for such a task.
81.

In addition to causing the severe trauma of Plaintiff’s wrongful imprisonment and

loss of liberty, Defendants’ misconduct caused and continues to cause Plaintiff extreme physical
and psychological pain and suffering.
82.

The misconduct committed by Defendants was objectively unreasonable and was

undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the rights of others, and in
total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence, and each Defendant is liable for
punitive damages, as well as other relief described below.
Defendant Bocardo’s History of Misconduct
83.

Though Mr. Velez could not have known this at the time, he was not the first—

nor the last person—that would be the victim of Defendants’ coercion and fabrication. To the
contrary, Defendant Bocardo has engaged in an emerging pattern of misconduct that sheds light
on the methods used during his investigation of the Hueneca murder.
84.

His pattern of misconduct was first evidenced in the 2005 shooting of Eric Uribe

and German Medina, two boys who had supposedly robbed a police officer’s son. In that case,

14

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 15 of 32 PageID #:725

Detectives Roberto Garcia and Michael Bocardo chased down Uribe and Medina, both of whom
were juveniles, after it was alleged that they had robbed Garcia’s son. Once Roberto and
Bocardo stopped Uribe’s vehicle, they fired shots into the car, killing Medina and injuring
Uribe, without justification. Roberto and Bocardo claimed the boys were armed, but no gun was
ever found. A lawsuit was filed against Bocardo and Roberto, and a jury returned a verdict in
favor of both plaintiffs. On appeal from the trial court, the appellate court stated, “Bluntly put, it
seems clear that but for the recklessly joined pursuit by the victim’s off-duty detective father and
his colleague Detective Bocardo, the injury and death here would not have occurred.”
85.

The Garcia foray was not the last occasion that Bocardo engaged in misconduct.

In 2006, Tristan Scaggs alleged that Bocardo shot him in the back while he lay on the ground
unarmed. Two police officer eyewitnesses support Scagg’s claim. See People v. Scaggs, No. 06
CR 26598.
86.

In 2011, Michael and Adrian Ayala sued Bocardo for excessive force. Bocardo

and his fellow officers handcuffed and interrogated the Ayala brothers after stopping them on the
street. When the Ayala brothers objected and told Bocardo that video cameras filmed the police
officer’s conduct, police at the scene began beating them. See Ayala v. Bocardo et. al., No. 11 cv
6094.
87.

Bocardo was sued again in 2011 by Mario Zamora. In that case, Bocardo and his

fellow officers burst into Zamora’s home and began searching it. Eventually, officers found a
safe in Zamora’s house and asked him to open it. When Zamora refused, an officer struck
Zamora on the head causing him to fall into a chair. Officers then broke into the safe, destroying
it. In an attempt to justify their unlawful search, police officers obtained a warrant to search after
the fact. See Zamora v. Wier, No. 11 cv 07703.

15

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 16 of 32 PageID #:726

88.

Lastly, in 2012, Gustavo Torres sued Bocardo for false imprisonment. In that

case, Bocardo, dressed in civilian clothing, pulled a gun on Torres. Torres quickly entered a door
of a nearby restaurant and was promptly arrested by Bocardo and his partner. Bocardo later
found two guns near the bar and claimed that one of those guns belonged to Torres despite the
fact that he never saw Torres with a gun. See Torres v. Perez et. al., No. 12 cv 10402.
89.

Defendant Bocardo was never disciplined by the Chicago Police Department for

any of the above-described misconduct.
City of Chicago Policy and Practice of Prosecuting Innocent Persons
in Violation of Due Process
90.

The Chicago Police Department is responsible for scores of miscarriages of

justice. Since 1986, no fewer than 70 documented cases have come to light in which Chicago
Police Detectives amassed “evidence” against an innocent person for a serious crime that he did
not commit. There are undoubtedly many more such cases that have not yet been discovered.
91.

The false charges against innocent people include numerous cases in which

Chicago Police Officers used the very same tactics that Defendants used against Plaintiff in this
case, including: (1) procurement of false witness testimony; (2) concealment of exculpatory
evidence; (3) manipulation of witnesses in order to obtain false identifications; (4) manipulation
of witnesses in order to influence their testimony; and (5) employment of other tactics to secure
the arrest, prosecution and conviction of persons without regard to their actual guilt or innocence.
92.

At all times relevant hereto, members of the Chicago Police Department,

including the Defendants in this action, routinely manufactured evidence against innocent
persons by coercing, manipulating, threatening, pressuring, and offering inducements to
witnesses to provide false statements implicating innocent persons, knowing full well that those
statements were false. As a matter of widespread custom and practice, members of the Chicago

16

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 17 of 32 PageID #:727

Police Department, including the Defendants in this action, contrived false witness narratives
that were fed to vulnerable witnesses who then adopted those false witness narratives as their
own for the purpose of wrongly convicting an innocent person. Furthermore, Chicago Police
Department officers systematically suppressed exculpatory and/or impeaching material by
concealing evidence that a witness had been coerced, manipulated, threatened, pressured or
offered inducements to make false statements.
93.

Consistent with the municipal policy and practice described in the preceding

paragraph, employees of the City of Chicago, including the named Defendants, procured false
testimony from witnesses knowing full well that their testimony was false and would lead to the
wrongful conviction of Plaintiff. The improper tactics used to gain cooperation from these
witnesses were concealed from Plaintiff.
94.

At all times relevant hereto, members of the Chicago Police Department,

including the Defendants in this action, systematically suppressed exculpatory and/or
impeaching material by intentionally secreting discoverable reports, memos and other
information in files that were maintained solely at the police department and were not disclosed
to the participants of the criminal justice system. As a matter of widespread custom and practice,
these clandestine files were withheld from the State’s Attorney’s Office and from criminal
defendants, and they were routinely destroyed at the close of the investigation, rather than being
maintained as part of the official file.
95.

Consistent with the municipal policy and practice described in the preceding

paragraph, employees of the City of Chicago, including the named Defendants, concealed
exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff.

17

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 18 of 32 PageID #:728

96.

At all times relevant hereto, members of the Chicago Police Department,

including the Defendants in this action, routinely manipulated, tricked, lied to, and misled
witnesses for the purpose of influencing their testimony to conform to a false narrative contrived
by the officers themselves. As a matter of widespread practice and custom, these tactics were
also used to induce false identifications of suspects.
97.

Consistent with the municipal policy and practice described in the preceding

paragraph, employees of the City of Chicago, including the named Defendants, manipulated,
tricked, and improperly influenced the witnesses in this case to give false statements against Mr.
Velez.
98.

The City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department routinely failed to

investigate cases in which Chicago Police Detectives recommended charging an innocent person
with a serious crime, and no Chicago Police Officer has ever been disciplined for misconduct in
any such case.
99.

Prior to and during 2001, the year in which Plaintiff was falsely charged with the

Hueneca murder, the City of Chicago operated a dysfunctional disciplinary system for Chicago
Police Officers accused of serious misconduct. The City’s Office of Professional Standards
almost never imposed significant discipline against police officers accused of violating the civil
and constitutional rights of members of the public. The Chicago Police disciplinary apparatus
included no mechanism for identifying police officers who were repeatedly accused of engaging
in the same type of misconduct.
100.

As a matter of both policy and practice, municipal policy makers and department

supervisors condoned and facilitated a code of silence with the Chicago Police Department. In

18

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 19 of 32 PageID #:729

accordance with this code, officers refused to report and otherwise lied about misconduct
committed by their colleagues, including the misconduct at issue in this case.
101.

As a result of the City of Chicago’s established practice of not tracking and

identifying police officers who are repeatedly accused of the same kinds of serious misconduct,
failing to investigate cases in which the police are implicated in a wrongful charge or conviction,
failing to discipline officers accused of serious misconduct and facilitating a code of silence
within the Chicago Police Department, officers (including the Defendants here) have come to
believe that they may violate the civil rights of members of the public and cause innocent
persons to be charged with serious crimes without fear of adverse consequences. As a result of
these policies and practices of the City of Chicago, members of the Chicago Police Department
act with impunity when they violate the constitutional and civil rights of citizens.
102.

Defendant Bocardo and others have a history of engaging in the kind of

misconduct that occurred in this case, including the fabrication and concealment of evidence.
Defendants engaged in such misconduct because they had no reason to fear that the City of
Chicago and its Police Department would ever discipline them for doing so.
103.

The City of Chicago and its Police Department failed in 2001 and in the years

prior to provide adequate training to Chicago Police Detectives and other officers in any of the
following areas, among others:
a.

The constitutional requirement to disclose exculpatory evidence, including how to

identify such evidence and what steps to take when exculpatory evidence has been identified, to
ensure that the evidence is made part of the criminal proceeding.
b.

The need to refrain from manipulative or potentially coercive conduct in relation

to witnesses.

19

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 20 of 32 PageID #:730

c.

The risks associated with relying on testimony from incentivized witnesses.

d.

The risks of wrongful conviction and the steps police officers should take to

minimize risks.
e.

The risks of engaging in “tunnel vision” during an investigation.

f.

The need for full disclosure, candor, and openness on the part of all officers who

participate in the police disciplinary process, both as witnesses and as accused officers, and the
need to report misconduct committed by fellow officers.
104.

The need for police officers to be trained in these areas was and remains obvious.

The City’s failure to train Chicago Police Officers as alleged in the preceding paragraph
proximately caused Plaintiff’s wrongful conviction and his injuries.
105.

The City’s failure to train, supervise, and discipline its officers, including repeat

offenders such as Defendant Bocardo, effectively condones, ratifies, and sanctions the kind of
misconduct that the Police Officer Defendants committed against Plaintiff in this case.
Constitutional violations such as those that occurred in this case are encouraged and facilitated as
a result of the City’s practices and de facto polices, as alleged above.
106.

The City of Chicago and officials within the Chicago Police Department failed to

act to remedy the patterns of abuse described in the preceding paragraphs, despite actual
knowledge of the pattern of misconduct. They thereby perpetuated the unlawful practices and
ensured that no action would be taken (independent of the judicial process) to remedy Plaintiff’s
ongoing injuries.
107.

The policies and practices described in the foregoing paragraphs were consciously

approved by the City of Chicago policymakers who were deliberately indifferent to the
violations of constitutional rights described herein.
Count I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
20

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 21 of 32 PageID #:731

Due Process: Fabrication of Evidence
Against Individual Defendants
108.

Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

109.

As described more fully above, Defendants, while acting individually, jointly, and

in conspiracy with one another, as well as under color of law and within the scope of their
employment, deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional right to a fair trial by fabricating false
evidence against Plaintiff.
110.

In the manner described more fully above, Defendants fabricated, coerced,

manipulated and/or solicited false testimony from witnesses implicating Plaintiff in the crime
that they knew he did not commit; falsified police reports; obtained Plaintiff’s conviction using
that false evidence; and failed to correct fabricated evidence that they knew to be false when it
was used against Plaintiff at his criminal trial.
111.

Defendants’ misconduct resulted directly in the unjust criminal conviction of

Plaintiff, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to a fair trial guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment. Absent this misconduct, Plaintiff’s prosecution could not, and would
not, have been pursued.
112.

The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was

undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights, and in total
disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
113.

As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered

loss of liberty, great emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and
damages.

21

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 22 of 32 PageID #:732

114.

The misconduct described in this Count by the Defendant Officers was

undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago Police Department, in the manner
more fully described below, in Count VI.
Count II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Due Process: Brady Violations
Against Defendant Officers
115.

Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

116.

As described in detail above, the Defendant Officers, while acting individually,

jointly, and in conspiracy with one another, as well as under color of law and within the scope of
their employment, deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional right to a fair trial by withholding and
suppressing exculpatory evidence. In the manner described more fully above, the Defendant
Officers deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff and from the prosecution,
among others, thereby misleading and misdirecting the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff.
117.

In addition, in the manner described more fully above, the Defendant Officers

knowingly fabricated and solicited false evidence implicating Plaintiff in the crime; obtained
Plaintiff’s conviction using that false evidence; and failed to correct fabricated evidence that they
knew to be false when it was used against Plaintiff at his criminal trial.
118.

The Defendant Officers’ misconduct resulted directly in the unjust criminal

conviction of Plaintiff, thereby denying his constitutional right to a fair trial guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment. Absent this misconduct, the prosecution of Plaintiff could not and
would not have been pursued.
119.

The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was

undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the rights of others, and in
total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.

22

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 23 of 32 PageID #:733

120.

As a result of the Defendant Officers’ misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty, great emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and
continuing injuries and damages.
121.

The misconduct described in this Count by was undertaken pursuant to the policy

and practice of the Chicago Police Department, in the manner more fully described below in
Count VI.
Count III – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Deprivation of Liberty without Probable Cause
Against Defendant Officers
122.

Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

123.

In the manner described more fully above, the individual Defendants,

individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with one another, and others, as well as under color of
law and within the scope of their employment, used false evidence that they had manufactured in
order to accuse Plaintiff of criminal activity and cause the deprivation of Plaintiff’s liberty,
without probable cause in violation of his rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments.
124.

The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was

undertaken intentionally, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
125.

As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff

suffered loss of liberty, great emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing
injuries and damages.
126.

The misconduct described in this Count by these Defendants was undertaken

pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago Police Department, in the manner more fully
described below in Count VI.
Count IV – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
23

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 24 of 32 PageID #:734

Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights
Against Individual Defendants
127.

Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this complaint as if fully restated here.

128.

Defendants, acting in concert with other co-conspirators, known and unknown,

reached an agreement among themselves to frame Plaintiff for a crime he did not commit and
deprive him of his constitutional rights by maliciously causing Plaintiff’s prosecution, by
fabricating evidence that would be used to convict Plaintiff; and by withholding exculpatory
information from Plaintiff’s defense and the prosecution, as described above.
129.

In the alternative, the Defendant Officers, acting in concert with other co-

conspirators, known and unknown, reached an agreement among themselves to frame Plaintiff
for a crime he did not commit and deprive him of his constitutional rights by maliciously causing
Plaintiff’s prosecution, by fabricating evidence that would be used to convict Plaintiff; and by
withholding exculpatory information from Plaintiff’s defense and the prosecution, as described
above.
130.

In so doing, these co-conspirators conspired to accomplish an unlawful purpose

by an unlawful means. In addition, these co-conspirators agreed among themselves to protect one
another from liability for depriving Plaintiff of these rights.
131.

In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of these co-conspirators committed overt

acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity.
132.

The misconduct described in this count was objectively unreasonable and was

undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the rights of others, and in
total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.

24

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 25 of 32 PageID #:735

133.

As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this count, Plaintiff suffered

loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, emotional pain and suffering, and
other grievous and continuing injuries and damages.
Count V – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Failure to Intervene
Against Individual Defendants
134.

Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

135.

During the constitutional violations described herein, one or more of the

Defendants stood by without intervening to prevent the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights, even though they had the opportunity to do so.
136.

The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was

undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the rights of others, and in
total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s innocence.
137.

As a result of the Defendants’ failure to intervene to prevent the violation of

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty, great emotional pain and
suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages.
138.

The misconduct described in this Count by Defendant Officers was undertaken

pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago Police Department, in the manner more fully
described below in Count VI.
Count VI – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Municipal Liability
Against Defendant City of Chicago
139.

Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

140.

As described more fully herein, the City of Chicago is itself liable for the

violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the policies,

25

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 26 of 32 PageID #:736

practices, and customs of the Chicago Police Department, in that employees and agents of the
Chicago Police Department, including Defendants in particular, regularly failed to disclose
exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants, fabricated false evidence implicating criminal
defendants in criminal conduct, pursued wrongful convictions through profoundly flawed
investigations, and otherwise violated due process in a similar manner to that alleged herein.
141.

This institutional desire to close cases through abusive tactics regardless of actual

guilt or innocence, to enhance police officers’ personal standing in the Department, was known
to the command personnel, who themselves participated in the practice.
142.

The above-described widespread practices, which were so well-settled as to

constitute the de facto policy of the Chicago Police Department, were allowed to exist because
municipal policymakers with authority over the same exhibited deliberate indifference to the
problem, thereby effectively ratifying it. Furthermore, the above-described widespread practices
were allowed to flourish because the Chicago Police Department declined to implement
sufficient training or any legitimate mechanism for oversight or punishment of officers and
agents who withheld material evidence, fabricated false evidence and witness testimony, and
pursued wrongful convictions.
143.

The constitutional violations described in this Complaint were also undertaken

pursuant to the policy and practices of the Chicago Police Department in that the constitutional
violations were committed with the knowledge or approval of persons with final policymaking
authority for City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department.
144.

Chicago police officers who manufactured criminal cases against individuals such

as Plaintiff had every reason to know that they not only enjoyed de facto immunity from criminal
prosecution and/or Departmental discipline, but that they also stood to be rewarded for closing

26

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 27 of 32 PageID #:737

cases no matter the costs. In this way, this system proximately caused abuses, such as the
misconduct at issue in this case.
145.

The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving force behind

the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and proximately caused Plaintiff
to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and damages set forth above.
Count VII – State Law Claim
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Against Individual Defendants
146.

Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

147.

In the manner described more fully above, Defendants engaged in extreme and

outrageous conduct.
148.

The Defendants either intended that their conduct would cause severe emotional

distress to Plaintiff or knew that there was a high probability that their conduct would cause
severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.
149.

The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness,

and reckless indifference to the rights of others.
150.

As a proximate result of this misconduct, undertaken within the scope of

Defendants’ employment, Plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not limited to severe
emotional distress.
Count VIII – State Law Claim
Malicious Prosecution
Against Defendant Officers
151.

Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

152.

The individual Defendants caused Plaintiff to be improperly subjected to judicial

proceedings for which there was no probable cause. These judicial proceedings were instituted

27

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 28 of 32 PageID #:738

and continued with malice and resulted in injury to Plaintiff. All such proceedings were
ultimately terminated in Plaintiff’s favor in a manner indicative of innocence.
153.

The Defendants accused Plaintiff of murder, knowing that he was innocent of the

crime. All of the individual Defendants fabricated evidence, coerced and manipulated witnesses,
and withheld material exculpatory evidence. The law enforcement officer Defendants knowingly
made false statements to prosecutors with the intent of exerting influence to institute and
continue judicial proceedings against Plaintiff.
154.

As described more completely above, Defendant Goldish would not have

prosecuted Plaintiff but for the involvement and encouragement of the Defendant Officers.
Indeed, Defendant Goldish would never have prosecuted the case without having at least one
police officer available to document and testify to the version of events that led to the initiation
of charges against Plaintiff.
155.

Defendant Goldish needed the Defendant Officers to back up the fabricated

charges against Plaintiff. Without the involvement, agreement, and falsifications of the
Defendant Officers, Defendant Goldish would never have initiated or continued the false charges
against Plaintiff.
156.

The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness,

and reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.
157.

As a direct and proximate result of this misconduct, undertaken within the scope

of Defendants’ employment, Plaintiff suffered injuries, including, but not limited to, emotional
distress.
Count IX – State Law Claim
Respondeat Superior
Against Defendants City of Chicago, Cook County, and Cook County Sheriff Thomas J.
Dart

28

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 29 of 32 PageID #:739

158.

Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

159.

In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the Defendant City

Police Officers were members and agents of the Chicago Police Department acting at all relevant
times within the scope of their employment.
160.

Defendant City of Chicago is liable as principal for all torts committed by its

161.

In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, Defendant Goldish

agents.

was a member of, and agent of, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, acting at all relevant
times within the scope of her employment and under color of law.
162.

In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants Sullivan

and Davis were members of, and agents of, the Cook County Sheriff’s Police Department, acting
at all relevant times within the scope of their employment and under color of law.
163.

Defendant Cook County Sheriff Thomas J. Dart is liable as a principal for all torts

committed by his agents.
164.

Defendant Cook County is liable as principal for all torts committed by its agents.
Count X – State Law Claim
Civil Conspiracy
Against Individual Defendants

165.

Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

166.

As described more fully in the preceding paragraphs, each of the individual

Defendants acting in concert with one another and other co-conspirators, known and unknown,
conspired to accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means.
167.

In the alternative, as described more fully in the preceding paragraphs, each of the

Defendant Officers acting in concert with one another and other co-conspirators, known and

29

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 30 of 32 PageID #:740

unknown, conspired to accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means.
168.

In furtherance of the conspiracy, the Defendants each committed overt acts and

were otherwise willing participants in joint activity.
169.

The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness

and reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.
170.

As a direct and proximate result of this misconduct, Plaintiff suffered injuries,

including, but not limited to, emotional distress.
Count XI – State Law Claim
Indemnification
Against Defendants City of Chicago, Cook County, and Cook County Sheriff Thomas J.
Dart
171.

Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

172.

Illinois law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort judgment for

compensatory damages for which employees are liable within the scope of their employment
activities.
173.

The City Police Defendant Officers are, or were, employees of the Chicago Police

Department who acted within the scope of their employment in committing the misconduct
described above.
174.

The City is liable to indemnify any compensatory judgment awarded against the

Defendant Officers.
175.

Defendant Cook County was, at all times material to this complaint, the employer

of Defendants Goldish, Sullivan, and Davis, and is therefore responsible for any judgment
entered against Defendants Goldish, Sullivan, and Davis during said employment with the
County, making the County a necessary party to this complaint.

30

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 31 of 32 PageID #:741

176.

Defendant Cook County Sheriff Thomas J. Dart was, at all times material to this

complaint, the employer of Defendants Sullivan and Davis, and is therefore responsible for any
judgment entered against Defendants Sullivan and Davis during said employment with the Cook
County Sheriff’s Department, making the Cook County Sheriff Thomas J. Dart a necessary party
to this complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff John Velez respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment
in his favor and against Defendants, awarding compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs,
and attorneys’ fees, and interest, as well as any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff John Velez hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
Dated: January 21, 2020

31

 Case: 1:18-cv-08144 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/21/20 Page 32 of 32 PageID #:742

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
s/ Danielle Hamilton
Attorney for John Velez
Arthur Loevy
Jon Loevy
Russell Ainsworth
Ruth Brown
Danielle Hamilton
LOEVY & LOEVY
311 North Aberdeen St., 3rd floor
Chicago, IL 60607
Phone: (312) 243-5900
Fax: (312) 243-5902
Jennifer Blagg
LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER BLAGG
1333 West Devon Ave., Suite 267
Chicago, IL 60660
Phone: (773) 859-0081
Fax: (773) 439-2863

32