Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

KATHLEEN KRAMEDAS
MCGUINESS CIVIL ACTION NO.

Plaintiff

vs.
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
OF THE 4TH, AND 14th
KATHLEEN JENNINGS,
AMENDMENTS OF THE
MARK DENNEY, AND
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
FRANK ROBINSON, IN THEIR
STATES AND SECTION 1983 OF
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND
COMMON LAW SLANDER
Defendants.

Plaintiff, Kathleen McGuiness, by way of Complaint against Defendants

Kathleen Jennings, Mark Denney, and Frank Robinson and says:

INTRODUCTION

1. This case seeks to protect and vindicate the fundamental constitutional

rights of Plaintiff Kathleen Kramedas McGuiness (Plaintiff McGuiness) under the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution through the

statutory vehicle 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Frank Robinson. In addition,

Plaintiff McGuiness is seeking damages for claims of slander against Defendants

Denney and Jennings.

 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 2

2. Plaintiff McGuiness seeks a monetary judgment against Defendant

Robinson, and a declaration that while acting under color of state law, his

unconstitutional conduct—drafting an affidavit of probable cause, that Defendant

Robinson knew or had reason to know was riddled with half-truths and false

statements.1

3. The basic purpose of § 1983 damages is to compensate persons for

injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S.

247, 254 (1978); Pryer v. C.O. 3 Slavic, 251 F.3d 448, 453 (3d Cir. 2001)

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. Plaintiff McGuiness incorporates by reference complaint paragraphs

one through three, as set forth fully here.

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant cause of

action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988.

6. Plaintiff McGuiness’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are

further authorized by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R Civ. P”) 57 and 65,

1
“…where an officer knows, or has reason to know, that he has materially misled a magistrate on the basis for a
finding of probable cause, … the shield of qualified immunity is lost.”
https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-
faqs/research-by-subject/civil-actions/liabilityforfalseaffidavits.pdf citing Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d
864, 871 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1221 (1992)
2
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 3

and by the general legal and inherent equitable powers of this Court. Title 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1983 and 1988 authorizes Plaintiff’s claims for damages.

7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants

reside, and the events occurred in the District of Delaware.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff McGuiness served as Delaware State Auditor from January

2019 until October 2022.

9. Defendant Kathleen Jennings (Defendant Jennings) serves as

Delaware’s 46th Attorney General. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant

Jennings was acting under the color of law in her individual capacity as an Attorney

General for the State of Delaware.

10. Defendant Mark Denney has been the Director of the Delaware

Department of Justice’s Division of Civil Rights and Public Trust since April 2020.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Denney was acting under the color of law

in his individual capacity as a Deputy Attorney General for the State of Delaware.

By information and belief, Defendant Denney is no longer employed by the State.

11. Defendant Frank Robinson is the Chief Special Investigator for the

Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant

3
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 4

Robinson was acting under the color of law in his individual capacity as Chief

Special Investigator for the Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust.

DEFENDANT ROBINSON USES FALSE INFORMATION TO OBTAIN A

SEARCH WARRANT AGAINST MCGUINESS

12. Following a yearlong investigation and the use of an investigative

Grand Jury, with great public fanfare, the State of Delaware’s Attorney General

brought an Indictment against Plaintiff McGuiness on October 10, 2021.

13. On September 28, 2021, the State sought, obtained, and executed a

Search Warrant at Auditor McGuiness’ office, for, among other things, “All invoices

and payment records for My Campaign Group and Innovate Consulting between

January 1, 2019, and July 1, 2021.” (A copy of the Search Warrant and

accompanying Probable Cause Affidavit are attached hereto as Exhibit A.)

14. In support of its application for the Search Warrant, in paragraph 2 of

the Probable Cause Affidavit, Defendant Robinson averred, “[Y]our affiant does not

believe he has excluded any fact or circumstance that would tend to defeat the

establishment of probable cause.”

15. In paragraph 23 of the Probable Cause Affidavit, Defendant Robinson

alleged, “On or about August 5, 2020, and again on or about September 10, 2020,

My Campaign Group invoices were split by AOA and paid in amounts of less

than $5,000.00. DEFENDANT engaged in at least three other contracts, for

4
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 5

$45,000.00 each. Each of those contracts included individual payments over the

$5,000.00 reporting threshold. The MYCG contract was the only OAOA2 no-bid

contract of at least $45,000.00 in which all payments were made below the

$5,000.00 reporting threshold.”

16. In further support of its application for the Search Warrant, Defendant

Robinson alleged in paragraph 24 of the Probable Cause Affidavit that “On or about

August 1, 2020, My Campaign Group submitted a single invoice for $11,250.00. On

August 5, 2020, My Campaign Group received two payments, one for $4,875.00 and

one for $4,500.00. DEFENDANT later instructed an AOA employee to pay

$1,950.00 with a PayPal account, on September 10, 2020, which was done outside

of the original $45,000.00 purchase order with the Division of Accounting.

Additional payments were made to My Campaign Group (“MyCG”) on September

10, 2020— one for $4,350.00, and another for $2,950.00. The $2,950.00 payment

was also made outside of the purchase order.”

17. Defendant Robinson and other unknown members of the Department

of Justice provided false information and recklessly disregarded the truth in setting

forth paragraphs 23 and 24 (as stated above).

2
The Complaint interchangeably uses the acronyms “AOA” and “OAOA” referring to the Office of Auditor of
Accounts.
5
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 6

18. Specifically, the information upon which Defendant Robinson and

other unknown members of the Department of Justice relied did not support

paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Affidavit of probable cause.

19. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 23 and 24 were demonstrably

false when made. In particular:

a. On August 5, 2020, the OAOA made only one payment to My

Campaign Group in the amount of $9,375 for the full amount of the August 2020

invoice.

b. Because the August 2020 payment was in excess of $5,000, it

was approved as required by the Division of Accounting.

c. On September 22, 2020, the OAOA made only one payment to

My Campaign Group in the amount of $9,250.

d. Because the September 22, 2020 payment was in excess of

$5,000, it was approved as required by the Division of Accounting.

20. Paragraphs 23 and 24 are substantially similar to paragraphs 31 and

32 of the First Indictment, in which Defendant was charged on October 10, 2021.

(A copy of the First Indictment is attached hereto as Exhibit B.)

21. Specifically, Defendant Robinson and other unknown members of the

Department of Justice relied on sources such as a spreadsheet called “My Campaign

6
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 7

Group Payments _2019 to 2021.” (The “MCG Spreadsheet”). (A copy of the MCG

Spreadsheet is attached hereto as Exhibit C.) The MCG Spreadsheet appears to list

all payments made by the OAOA to My Campaign Group. Each payment listed

includes, inter alia, a “payment reference number,” a method of payment, a date of

payment, and an amount of payment.

22. The MCG Spreadsheet clearly shows that contrary to paragraphs 23

and 24 of the Probable Cause Affidavit and paragraphs 31 and 32 of the First

Indictment, the August and September invoices from My Campaign Group were

each paid by EFT payments in excess of $5,000.

23. At the time that the search warrant was drafted, records available to

Defendants Robinson and other unknown members of the Department of Justice

maintained by the State’s automated and electronic accounting system called First

State Financials (“FSF”) showed that both invoice payments were, in fact,

approved by the Division of Accounting as required by that agency’s

regulations. FSF records were in the possession of the Defendants and readily

accessible to them, as they are accessible online by any State agency.

7
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 8

24. In fact, under oath, Defendant Robinson admitted to writing the

warrant based on information he knew to be false at the time.

Q: You told the court under oath there were multiple payments under
$5,000 in September; correct?
A: Correct
Q: That’s false.
A: Correct.
Q: And you knew it when you wrote the search warrant, right?
A: Correct.
(Transcript of Suppression Hearing, Pgs. 66-67, Lines 2-23, Lines 1-5 attached as Exhibit D)

25. In the Superseding Indictment by which Plaintiff was charged on

March 28, 2022, Defendants made significant changes to paragraphs 31 and 32.

Gone were the false allegations of multiple payments of less than $5,000 on the

August and September 2020 My Campaign Group invoices. Instead, the

Superseding Indictment alleges—for the first time in this prosecution—that the

subject invoices were “paid in multiple payments from multiple funding sources.”

(A copy of the Superseding Indictment is attached hereto as Exhibit E.)

26. The Search Warrant and accompanying Probable Cause Affidavit

included the same false allegations that led the State to correct itself in paragraphs

31 and 32 of the Superseding Indictment (paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Probable

Cause Affidavit).
8
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 9

27. The result was a finding of probable cause that would have been

unjustified in their absence.

28. In turn, the Search Warrant should not have been issued absent the

false information provided by the Defendants.

29. Paragraph 37 of the Probable Cause Affidavit purports to demonstrate

probable cause for the State to seize records maintained by the OAOA video system

from June 15, 2021, to July 1, 2021. It reads as follows:

“On or about June 25, 2021, an employee who is friends

with former employees and whistleblowers to the
misconduct at the Office of the Auditor of Accounts called
the police to report an item stolen from within the office.”

30. The obvious implication of paragraphs 37 and 38 is that the Auditor

Office’s video system might have recorded the theft of the employee’s item.

However, Defendant Robinson and other unknown members of the Department of

Justice knew no later than July 1, 2021, that the police officer who had investigated

the theft had viewed the records of the video system and concluded that they did not

depict the theft and that it was his opinion that the employee who reported the theft

was “10-81” (a police communication code meaning “crazy”).

31. These observations were reported by the Auditor’s Officer to Deputy

Attorney General Patricia Davis in an email dated July 1, 2021. (A copy of the email
9
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 10

chain is attached hereto as Exhibit F.) Despite the obviously exculpatory nature of

the email, it was not produced by the State until April 8, 2022, as part of a document

production of 511,266 files.

32. By omitting these facts from paragraph 37 of the Probable Cause

Affidavit, Defendant Robinson and other unknown members of the Department of

Justice knew there was, in fact, no probable cause to believe that the OAOA’s video

system might contain evidence of a crime.

33. The Search Warrant issued nevertheless, and the State thereunder

unconstitutionally seized evidence identified in bullets 6 and 7 of the Search Warrant

as “All invoices and payment records for My Campaign Group and Innovate

Consulting between January 1, 2019, and July 1, 2021” and recordings made by “The

office video system to cover June 15, 2021, to July 1, 2021,” respectively.

34. Plaintiff McGuiness, meanwhile, was unaware of the reckless falsity of

paragraphs 23, 24, and 37 until the State took corrective steps in the Superseding

Indictment and belatedly produced the documents two months after the Court’s

January 31, 2022 deadline for the filing of motions to suppress in her criminal case.

35. During McGuiness’ criminal trial, Robinson admitted under oath that

certain assertions in paragraphs 23 and 24 were false.

10
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 11

36. The Purchasing and Contracting Advisory Council establishes

thresholds that trigger formal bidding procedures in the areas of material and Non-

Professional Services, Public Works, and Professional Services. 29 Del. Code

6913(d)(4).

37. The Council does not require formal bidding for professional service

contracts under $50,000.00.

38. By information and belief, the Attorney General’s office and other

state agencies routinely use the same no-bid contracts as the one between the

Auditor’s Office and My Campaign Group.

DEFENDANT JENNINGS AND DENNEY’S STATEMENTS AGAINST

MCGUINESS AT THE OCTOBER 11th, 2021, PRESS CONFERENCE

39. On October 11, 2021, the Department of Justice, represented by

Defendant Jennings, Defendant Denney, and Chief Deputy Attorney General,

Alexander Mackler held a press conference announcing an indictment against

Plaintiff McGuiness. See below:

11
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 12

https://www.delawareonline.com/videos/news/2021/10/11/delaware-state-auditor-kathy-

mcguiness-indicted-two-felony-charges-attorney-general-kathy-jennings/6094498001/

40. Defendant Jennings made the following statements concerning the

charges against Plaintiff at the Press Conference (03:14, 4:31):

a. Jennings stated that Plaintiff McGuiness was being indicted after

a year-long investigation.

b. McGuiness contracted the MyCampaignGroup as a consultant

for the Auditor of Accounts office.

c. McGuiness concocted a “sweetheart deal” by finding a

“loophole” to avoid a competitive bidding process.

d. McGuiness illegally structured a series of payments to the

company in order to avoid public oversight.

12
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 13

e. McGuiness contracted the company a second time and created

another deal which was structured to avoid public oversight and a competitive

bidding process.

f. Defendant Jennings stated, “The defendant [McGuiness] also

illegally structured a series of payments to My Campaign Group to remain under the

state approval threshold.”

41. Defendant Denney made the following statements concerning the

charges against Plaintiff at the Press Conference (15:16):

a. Vouching for the legitimacy of the facts included in the

indictment by stating “…this indictment is as detailed and as thorough as an

indictment that we’ve ever done in the State of Delaware, and for the reason of

ensuring public trust and transparency in these cases, we wanted to be as specific as

possible.”

b. Stating “She [McGuiness] structured a contract to avoid scrutiny,

period.”

c. McGuiness manipulated invoices to avoid direct payment

overview by the Division of Accounting. Defendant Jennings stated, “The defendant

[McGuiness] also illegally structured a series of payments to My Campaign Group

to remain under the state approval threshold.”

13
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 14

42. Defendant Jennings emphasized her involvement in the case by stating

she was “laser beam focused on the prosecution and on the investigation.”

43. On the same date of the Press Conference, the State indicted Plaintiff

McGuiness for five counts: (1) Conflict of Interest, (2) Felony Theft, (3) Non-

Compliance with Procurement Law, (4) Official Misconduct, and (5) Act of

Intimidation. (“Ex. B”).

44. Paragraphs 31 and 32 of the First Indictment contained the same

factually false allegations that were alleged in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the probable

cause affidavit supporting the search warrant.

45. Prior to trial, Plaintiff’s defense counsel filed a Motion to Suppress and

Request for a Franks Hearing based on false allegations in the search warrant

affidavit and subsequent indictments.

46. During the Franks hearing, Defendant Robinson agreed that he

included facts in the affidavit of probable cause supporting the search warrant that

he knew or should have known were false.

47. At the Franks hearing, Defendant Robinson never intimated that

anyone else was responsible for drafting the affidavit.

48. In light of Defendant Robinson’s testimony, the trial court suppressed

the seized ESI.

14
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 15

49. Plaintiff McGuiness’ criminal jury trial began on June 14, 2022.

50. At trial, Director of the State’s Division of Accounting, Jane Cole

testified that MyCG did not receive two payments in violation of Section 6903(a).

(Excerpts of Cole’s Testimony attached as Exhibit G)

51. Cole testified to the following:

Q. And anybody who wrote that My Campaign Group received two

payments on September 10th of 2020 is making a false statement; isn’t that
correct?
A. Yes, it is.
(Excerpt of Cole’s Testimony, C-91, lines 11-23 attached as Exhibit G)

52. In regard to a payment chart, Cole testified:

Q. And anybody who said that chart says My Campaign Group received

multiple payments made an untrue statement; correct?

A. Correct.
(Excerpt of Cole’s Testimony, C-101, lines 17-20 attached as Exhibit G)

53. In addition, Cole testified at trial that the Division of Accounting was

contacted by the Defendants in the summer of 2021 about a particular set of invoices

paid to a contractor called My Campaign Group. (C-107, lines 7-12)

15
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 16

54. Cole testified that she forwarded information regarding the approval of

the vouchers to the Attorney General’s Office sometime in July or early August of

2021. (C-111, lines 5-10)

55. In regard to notifying the Attorney General’s office, Cole testified:

Q: So as of whenever you forwarded that information, July or early

August of 2021, you told the Department of Justice that the Division of
Accounting approved two vouchers since they exceeded $5,000?
A. Correct.
Q: And so if anybody said that there were multiple payments all under
$5,000, that would be a false statement relating to August and September;
right?
A: Correct.
Q: And anybody who had the benefit of reading this email would know it
was a false statement; correct?
A: Correct.
(Excerpt of Cole’s Testimony, C-111, lines 1-19 attached as Exhibit G)

56. For the first time at trial, Defendant Robinson testified that he was not

the sole author of the affidavit submitted to the Superior Court to support the

September 2021 search warrant (referenced above).

57. Defendant Robinson testified that the affidavit was written by a team.

16
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 17

58. At this time, Plaintiff is not aware of what other members of the

Attorney General’s team participated in providing the false information in the

affidavit. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the complaint to add those individuals.

59. Defendant Denney, Jennings, and Robinson possessed information

contrary to the information submitted in the Probable Affidavit and original

indictment and statements they made during the press conference.

60. On July 1, 2022, the jury found McGuiness not guilty of Counts Two

and Five and guilty of Counts One, Three, and Four.

61. Judge Carpenter issued a Post Trial Decision dismissing the Structure

charge ultimately deciding that Plaintiff’s acts did not constitute a crime.

62. In pages 12-13 of his decision, Judge Carpenter writes:

“The procurement statute violation has been a difficult one for the State
to establish as it is the classic example of trying to fit conduct into a statute
for which it was never intended to address. The State's initial theory in the
case was that the Defendant violated Section 6903(a) when she had
manipulated a contract to ensure that when executed it did not violate the
$50,000 threshold to avoid placing it out for bid, conduct clearly contemplated
by that section of the code. When it became evident there was no splitting of
the initial contract into two or more separate ones, however, the State's
theory mollified into a theory that when one intentionally breaks invoices
down into smaller amounts to avoid the $5,000 review threshold, such
conduct would violate Section 6981 and be subject to the criminal
17
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 18 of 26 PageID #: 18

penalties listed in Section 6903(a). The problem with relying upon Section
6981 is that subchapter of Chapter 69 does not criminalize that
conduct... After reviewing the evidence, it appears that the MyCG
contract was properly executed between the OAOA and MyCG because
it was below the $50,000 threshold and not subject to the provisions in
Section 6981.” State v. McGuiness, No. 2206000799 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug.
30, 2022)

63. In other words, Judge Carpenter determined that there never was a

“structuring” crime. The only way the State was able to allege probable cause in the

warrant was to concoct a crime that never occurred, and when McGuiness’ defense

called them on it, the State re-indicted to allege an offense that doesn’t exist.

64. On October 19, 2022, McGuiness was sentenced to, inter alia, pay a

$10,000 fine, serve one year in custody at supervision Level 5, suspended for one

year at supervision Level 1 and perform 500 hours of community service.

65. McGuiness filed a Notice of Appeal on November 18, 2022.

66. McGuiness’ appeal is still pending and scheduled for oral argument

before the Delaware Supreme Court on September 20, 2023.

Count One—Fourth Amendment Violation Against Defendant Robinson

(42 U.S.C § 1983)

18
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 19 of 26 PageID #: 19

67. Plaintiff McGuiness incorporates by reference complaint paragraphs

one through forty-four, as set forth fully here.

68. The Constitution prohibits a state official from making perjurious or

recklessly false statements in support of a warrant. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S.

154, 165-66 (1978)

69. Here, it was determined at trial that the affidavit submitted by

Defendant Robinson included false information.

70. The affidavit included the following falsities and/or misleading

statements:

a. On or about August 1, 2020, My Campaign Group submitted a

single invoice for $11,250.00. On August 5, 2020, My Campaign Group received

two payments, one for $4,875.00 and one for $4,500.00. DEFENDANT later

instructed an AOA employee to pay $1,950.00 with a PayPal account, on September

10, 2020, which was done outside of the original $45,000.00 purchase order with the

Division of Accounting. Additional payments were made to My Campaign Group

on September 10, 2020— one for $4,350.00, and another for $2,950.00. The

$2,950.00 payment was also made outside of the purchase order.

b. On or about August 5, 2020, and again on or about September

10, 2020, My Campaign Group invoices were split by AOA and paid in amounts

19
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 20 of 26 PageID #: 20

of less than $5,000.00. DEFENDANT engaged in at least three other contracts, for

$45,000.00 each. Each of those contracts included individual payments over the

$5,000.00 reporting threshold. The MYCG contract was the only OAOA no-bid

contract of at least $45,000.00 in which all payments were made below the

$5,000.00 reporting threshold.

71. The records available to the State and Robinson as maintained by the

State’s automated and electronic accounting system called First State Financials

(“FSF”) showed that both invoice payments were, in fact, approved by the

Division of Accounting as required by that agency’s regulations. FSF records

were either in the possession of Robinson or were readily accessible to him, as they

are accessible online by any State agency.

72. Paragraph 37 of the Probable Cause Affidavit purports to demonstrate

probable cause for the State to seize records maintained by the OAOA video system

from June 15, 2021, to July 1, 2021. It reads as follows:

“On or about June 25, 2021, an employee who is friends with former
employees and whistleblowers to the misconduct at the Office of the
Auditor of Accounts called the police to report an item stolen from within
the office.”

73. At the time of the affidavit containing the misleading information

regarding the purported theft of stolen items from the office, Defendant Robinson
20
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 21 of 26 PageID #: 21

and other unknown members of the Department of Justice were aware that the police

had investigated the claim and determined the report to be “crazy”.

74. By omitting these facts from paragraph 37 of the Probable Cause

Affidavit, Defendant Robinson and other unknown members of the Department of

Justice recklessly disregarded the truth. There was, in fact, no probable cause to

believe that the OAOA’s video system might contain evidence of a crime.

75. Here, Defendant Robinson and other unknown members of the

Department of Justice knowingly filed a false affidavit to secure a search warrant in

violation of Section 1983.

76. There is no doubt that Defendant Robinson and other unknown

members of the Department of Justice knew, or had reason to know, that the affidavit

submitted materially misled a magistrate on the basis of a finding of probable cause.

Therefore, they cannot claim qualified immunity as a defense.

77. The Search Warrant was issued based on these false statements, and the

State unconstitutionally seized evidence identified in bullets 6 and 7 of the Search

Warrant as “All invoices and payment records for My Campaign Group and Innovate

Consulting between January 1, 2019, and July 1, 2021” and recordings made by “The

office video system to cover June 15, 2021, to July 1, 2021,” respectively.

21
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 22 of 26 PageID #: 22

78. This is not a case where Defendant Robinson and other unknown

members of the Department of Justice acted in good faith or relied on third parties

who were lying.

79. Here, Defendants Robinson, and other unknown members of the

Department of Justice were in possession of the facts they either knew were false or

intentionally ignored the facts.

80. At trial, Defendant Robinson took the witness stand and admitted that

he knew the information in the warrant was false.

81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Robinson and other

unknown members of the Department of Justice's unlawful actions, Plaintiff

McGuiness has suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of her fundamental

liberty interests entitling her to declaratory relief and damages.

Count Two – Slander Per Se Against Defendants Kathy Jennings and

Mark Denney

82. Plaintiff McGuiness repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 59

above as if specifically set forth herein.

83. In order to state a claim of defamation properly, a plaintiff must satisfy

five elements: (1) defamatory communication; (2) publication; (3) the

22
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 23 of 26 PageID #: 23

communication refers to the plaintiff; (4) a third party's understanding of the

communication's defamatory character; and (5) injury.

84. Slander is oral defamation.

85. If a statement defames Plaintiff in her trade, business, or profession, she

need not show that the defamation caused an actual monetary loss in order to recover

damages.

86. Defendants Denney and Jennings are not protected by absolute

privilege afforded to attorneys in the context of litigation for any statements made

to the press.

87. On October 11, 2021, during the Press Conference referenced above,

both Defendant Denney and Jennings made false statements that Plaintiff

McGuiness structured political payments to a consulting group as described above

in order to avoid oversight by the State, specifically the Division of Accounting.

88. The Defendants intentionally or recklessly failed to determine the

truth of the defamatory matter since at the time that the press conference was held,

records available to Defendants Denney and Jennings as maintained by the State’s

automated and electronic accounting system called First State Financials (“FSF”)

showed that both invoice payments were, in fact, approved by the Division of

23
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 24 of 26 PageID #: 24

Accounting as required by that agency’s regulations.

89. FSF records were either in the possession of the Defendants or readily

accessible to them, as they are accessible online by any State agency.

90. At the press conference, Defendants Denney and Jennings

emphasized their complete knowledge of the facts of the investigation and

allegations in the indictment.

91. Defendant Denney stated the “indictment is the most detailed and as

thorough as an indictment” as any in the history of the State.

92. Defendant Jennings stated she was “laser beam focused” on the facts

of the investigation and “very focused” on the prosecution.

93. A large portion of the Press Conference focused on McGuiness

creating a “sweetheart” deal by manipulating pay structure to avoid public scrutiny

and direct payment overview, particularly by the Division of Accounting.

94. The statements made by Defendants Denney and Jennings concerning

Plaintiff McGuiness, were known to be false at the time they were made (as admitted

by Defendant Robinson) and caused injury to Plaintiff McGuiness.

95. The defamation defamed Plaintiff McGuiness’ profession and

therefore she need not show an actual monetary loss. However, Plaintiff McGuiness

did suffer actual monetary loss as a result of Defendants Denney and Jennings’

24
 Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 25 of 26 PageID #: 25

statements.

96. It was necessary for the Plaintiff to hire the undersigned attorney to

file this lawsuit. Upon judgment, the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees

and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b).

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

97. The above paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by

reference as if set in full.

98. Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Robinson, Denney, and

Jennings, individually, jointly, and/or in the alternative for compensatory damages,

punitive damages, attorney fees, interest and costs of suit, and such relief as the Court

may deem just and equitable.

99. Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Robinson, Denney, and

Jennings jointly and/or in the alternative for compensatory damages, attorney fees,

interest and costs of suit, and such relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.

PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

100. Plaintiff asserts her rights under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution and demands, in accordance with Federal Rule 38, a trial by jury on all

issues.

25
Case 1:23-cv-00894-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 26 of 26 PageID #: 26

THE POLIQUIN FIRM, LLC

By: /s/ Ronald G. Poliquin

Ronald G. Poliquin, Esquire
Delaware Bar ID No. 4447
1475 S. Governors Ave.
Dover, DE 19904
(302) 702-5501

Attorney for Plaintiff Kathleen McGuiness

Date: August 15, 2023

26