Saying no state court has ever seen a case like this, the director of the Illinois State Police Merit Board is asking a state appeals court in Springfield to ignore what she says is an attempt by Illinois’ Attorney General Kwame Raoul to kill off a politically embarrassing lawsuit against a former Merit Board employee, who is accused of using her connections to Raoul’s political ally, Gov. JB Pritzker, to further her alleged schemes to defraud the state of more than $500,000 of public money.
The Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court is scheduled to hear arguments on July 19 in the action brought on behalf of the state of Illinois by Merit Board Director Emily Fox under the state’s False Claims Act against former Merit Board employee Jenny Thornley.
While the hearing will deal specifically with the facts of the case thus far, it could more broadly answer the question of whether the Attorney General can assert nearly unfettered power to dispose of fraud cases against the state brought by whistleblowers, regardless of the facts of the case.
In this case, Fox asserts she is fighting against an interpretation of the law that she says has improperly allowed Raoul to bury the case to protect Pritzker from public scrutiny of his office’s alleged actions in this case.
“Fox alleges corruption that defrauded the State of Illinois of more than a half million dollars,” Fox wrote in a brief filed in May. “She further describes how the Office of the Governor, and the Governor’s General Counsel in particular, directly facilitated that fraud.
“The Attorney General does not dispute the State was defrauded. But rather than follow the facts where they may lead, or allow Fox to do so, the Attorney General not only declined to pursue the case but he attempted to quash the case altogether, thus protecting from the light of discovery not just the defendant but also the Governor and his staff.”
In a brief also filed in May, Raoul asserts Fox has never provided proof to back the assertion his office has sought to end Fox’s case on behalf of the governor, an assertion he calls mere “speculation.”
Instead, he asserts he is acting under the power granted to his office by law to decide as the sole legal representative of the state which cases to allow to proceed and which ones to end. He said he is only required to demonstrate his decision to end such fraud cases are not based on “bad faith.”
In this case, Raoul said his office believes the case would be a waste of the state’s “limited prosecutorial resources,” to pursue the fraud suit against Thornley. Instead, Raoul said he believes it is sufficient to allow local prosecutors to bring criminal charges against Thornley.
“At best, Fox’s challenge to the dismissal of this action represents a disagreement with the Attorney General’s assessment of that dismissal is prudent and in the State’s best interest because substantial monetary relief against Thornley can be awarded in the pending criminal and workers’ compensation actions, and any ultimate monetary recovery against her is questionable,” Raoul wrote in his brief.
“That assessment cannot plausible (sic) be characterized as ‘conscience shocking.’”
The appellate proceedings arise as part of a larger group of legal actions and allegations dating back to 2019.
At that time, Fox allegedly first uncovered evidence that Thornley, who then worked as the chief fiscal officer and director of personnel, was allegedly falsifying her timesheets to get paid for overtime she allegedly never worked.
According to court documents in Fox’s case and others, Thornley allegedly forged the signature of former Merit Board Director Jack Garcia and his predecessor to secure the alleged illicit unearned overtime pay.
Fox also allegedly uncovered evidence Thornley allegedly also lied about her college education on her resume, which allowed her to get the job and receive higher pay.
Fox took that information to Garcia, who allegedly investigated further and was about to take the information to police.
However, according to court documents, Thornley then allegedly falsely accused Garcia of sexual assault and appealed to Gov. Pritzker and his wife, M.K. Pritzker, for help. According to court documents, Fox and Garcia both assert Thornley allegedly threatened Garcia, telling him he “did not know who he was messing with,” and warned him “the Governor’s Office would get involved if Garcia did not back off.”
Thornley had worked on Pritzker’s 2018 campaign for governor, and has been identified as a personal friend of M.K. Pritzker.
Thornley’s accusations against Garcia were later determined to be false in later investigations by the Illinois State Police and attorneys hired by the Merit Board from the firm of McGuirewoods. The McGuirewoods inquiry further substantiated the fraud, theft and forgery accusations against Thornley.
Garcia was initially removed from his post, but later restored following the investigations. Thornley was then terminated and Garcia reinstated.
However, Garcia would be permanently removed under a law Pritzker signed forbidding anyone who had previously worked for the ISP from also serving as Merit Board director. Critics called that legislation a targeted political hit job, intended as retribution against Garcia.
Nonetheless, Thornley sued Garcia in federal court over the alleged sexual assault. Garcia countersued, accusing her of defamation.
In early July, a federal judge granted Garcia an abrupt win in those cases, awarding a so-called default judgment to Garcia after Thornley appeared to abandon the case.
However, early in the process, Thornley also filed a worker’s compensation claim, seeking monthly payments for injuries she claimed she suffered, based on the apparently false sexual assault allegations against Garcia.
The allegedly bogus claim was allegedly pushed through by a high ranking official within the Pritzker administration, identified in Fox’s court filings as Anne Spillane, Pritzker’s general counsel.
According to Fox’s court filings, Thornley allegedly falsely claimed on her worker’s comp application that she was an employee of the governor’s office. She further listed Pritzker as her direct supervisor, and included his personal cell phone number as his contact information.
Fox estimated Thornley allegedly pocketed another $70,000 in fraudulent worker’s comp pay, allegedly as a result of the alleged intervention from the governor’s office.
In all, Fox estimated Thornley pocketed more than $500,000 from taxpayers, allegedly thanks to the protection of the governor’s office.
Fox claims she presented evidence of Thornley’s alleged fraud, and the involvement of the Pritzker administration, to both the Office of the Illinois Executive Inspector General and Raoul.
However, both offices refused to do anything further with the case.
Fox then filed a so-called qui tam action against Thornley. In a qui tam action, an individual files suit on behalf of a government agency, typically to recover money taken from the government through false claims for payment of fraud.
When individuals – known as “relators” - file suit on the state’s behalf under the Illinois False Claims Act, the Attorney General, acting as the legal representative of the state, has the authority to decide whether to take up the case itself, or to decline, and allow the relator to move forward with the case on their own.
In some instances, however, the law allows the Attorney General to seek to dismiss the case, but only after they notify the relator of their intent and appear before a judge.
In this case, Raoul did not only decline to take up the case on his own, but has sought to dismiss it altogether, denying Fox the chance to proceed on her own.
Sangamon County Judge Adam Giganti sided with Raoul, dismissing the case. In the ruling Giganti said he did not believe it was the role of the court to tell the Attorney General which cases he must decide to prosecute and which to ignore. The judge further said he did not believe Fox had done enough to prove Raoul was allowing political considerations to hold sway in the case against Thornley, or to prove that Raoul was being pressured by the governor’s office to dismiss the case.
On appeal, however, Fox said Raoul has misrepresented the law.
In this case, Fox said, the courts should deny Raoul the ability to tank this case, which she said is distinguished from other false claims lawsuits, specifically because of the alleged manipulations of Pritzker’s office.
“These facts are not conjectural or speculative; they are alarming and unexplained,” Fox said. “The Attorney General’s contortions to gloss over these facts is, again, more evidence of his conflicted position.
“This is, precisely, why the law allows whistleblowers to pursue fraud even when, for whatever reasons, the State will not.”
Fox is represented in the case by attorneys Robert M. Andalman and Diana Gurler, of the firm of A&G Law, of Chicago.