McGuiness Updated Complaint

Case 1:23-cv-00894-JLH Document 5 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 258
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KATHLEEN KRAMEDAS
MCGUINESS, CHRISTIE R. CIVIL ACTION NO.
GROSS, AND MY CAMPAIGN 1:23-cv-00894-MN
GROUP, LLC
Plaintiffs,
SECOND AMENDED
vs. COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
OF THE 4TH, AND 14th
KATHLEEN JENNINGS, AMENDMENTS OF THE
MARK DENNEY, ALEXANDER CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
SNYDER-MACKLER AND STATES AND SECTION 1983 OF
FRANK ROBINSON, THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND
IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL COMMON LAW SLANDER
CAPACITIES
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Kathleen McGuiness, Christie R. Gross, and My Campaign
Group LLC, by way of Complaint against Defendants Kathleen Jennings, Mark
Denney, Alexander Snyder-Mackler and Frank Robinson 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 Defendants Frank Robinson, Mark

Denney, and Alexander Snyder-Mackler. In addition, Plaintiff McGuiness is seeking
damages for claims of slander against Defendants Denney and Jennings.
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)
4. Plaintiffs Christie R. Gross and My Campaign Group LLC (MYCG) is
seeking damages for defamatory statements by Defendants Kathleen Jennings, Mark
Denney, Alexander Snyder-Mackler, and Frank Robinson.
Jurisdiction and Venue
5. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference complaint paragraphs one through
three, as set forth fully here.
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
6. 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.
7. Plaintiff McGuiness’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are
further authorized by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R Civ. P”) 57 and 65,
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.
8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants
reside, and the events occurred in the District of Delaware.
PARTIES
9. Plaintiff McGuiness served as Delaware State Auditor from January
2019 until October 2022.
10. Plaintiff Christie R. Gross is the founder and owner of Plaintiff My
Campaign Group, LLC (MYCG) and Innovate Consulting, LLC. Plaintiff MYCG
was contracted to provide communication services that expanded to include public
policy work as a subject matter expert for the Auditor’s Office beginning November
2019 and extending to February 2021, spanning two separate contracts.
11. Defendant Kathleen Jennings (Defendant Jennings) serves as
Delaware’s 46th Attorney General. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant
3
Jennings was acting under the color of law in her individual capacity as an Attorney
General for the State of Delaware.
12. 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.
13. Defendant Alexander Snyder-Mackler has been the Chief Deputy
Attorney General to Defendant Jennings since May 2019. Mackler was previously
Deputy Legal Counsel to Vice President Joe Biden. At all times mentioned herein,
Defendant Mackler was acting under the color of law in his individual capacity as a
Deputy Attorney General for the State of Delaware.
14. Defendant Frank Robinson is the Chief Special Investigator for the
Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant
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.
4
DEFENDANT ROBINSON USES FALSE INFORMATION TO OBTAIN A

SEARCH WARRANT AGAINST MCGUINESS
15. 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.
16. 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, LLC and Innovate Consulting, LLC
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.)
17. 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.”
18. 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
$45,000.00 each. Each of those contracts included individual payments over the
5
$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.”
19. 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.”
20. Defendants Robinson, Mackler, and Denney along with other possible
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.
6
21. Specifically, the information upon which Defendants Robinson,
Mackler Denney, and other possible unknown members of the Department of Justice
relied did not support paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Affidavit of Probable Cause.
22. 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.
23. 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.)
24. Specifically, Defendant Robinson and other unknown members of the
Department of Justice relied on sources such as a spreadsheet called “My Campaign
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.
25. 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.
26. At the time that the search warrant was drafted, records available to
Defendants Robinson, Mackler, Denney and other possible 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.
8
27. 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)
28. 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.)
29. 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).
9
30. The result was a finding of probable cause that would have been
unjustified in their absence.
31. In turn, the Search Warrant should not have been issued absent the
false information provided by Defendants Robinson, Mackler, and Denney.
32. 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.”
33. The obvious implication of paragraphs 37 and 38 is that the Auditor's
Office’s video system might have recorded the theft of the employee’s item.
However, Defendants Robinson, Mackler, Denney, and other possible 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”).
10
34. 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
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.
35. By omitting these facts from paragraph 37 of the Probable Cause
Affidavit, Defendants Robinson, Mackler, Denney and other possible 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
11
38. During McGuiness’ criminal trial, Robinson admitted under oath that
certain assertions in paragraphs 23 and 24 were false.
39. 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).
40. The Council does not require formal bidding for professional service
contracts under $50,000.00.
41. 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, GROSS AND MYCG AT THE
OCTOBER 11, 2021, PRESS CONFERENCE
42. 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:
12
https://www.delawareonline.com/videos/news/2021/10/11/delaware-state-auditor-kathy-
mcguiness-indicted-two-felony-charges-attorney-general-kathy-jennings/6094498001/
43. 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 My Campaign Group 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 public oversight.

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.”
44. 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.”
14
45. Defendant Jennings emphasized her involvement in the case by stating
she was “laser beam focused on the prosecution and on the investigation.”
46. 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”).
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. At the Franks hearing, Defendant Robinson never intimated that
anyone else was responsible for drafting the affidavit.
51. In light of Defendant Robinson’s testimony, the trial court suppressed
the seized ESI.
15
52. Plaintiff McGuiness’ criminal jury trial began on June 14, 2022.
53. 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)
54. 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)
55. 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.
56. 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)
16
57. 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)
58. 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.
59. 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).
60. Defendant Robinson testified that the affidavit was written by a team.
61. Previously, Plaintiff was not aware of what other members of the
Attorney General’s team participated in providing the false information in the

17
affidavit. Plaintiff now knows Defendants Mackler and Denney also co-authored the
affidavit containing the false information.
62. Defendants Robinson, Mackler, Denney, and Jennings, possessed
information contrary to the information submitted in the Probable Affidavit and
original indictment and statements they made during the press conference.
63. On July 1, 2022, the jury found McGuiness not guilty of Counts Two
and Five and guilty of Counts One, Three, and Four.
64. Judge Carpenter issued a Post Trial Decision dismissing the Structure
charge ultimately deciding that Plaintiff’s acts did not constitute a crime.
65. 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
penalties listed in Section 6903(a). The problem with relying upon Section
18
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)
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. McGuiness filed a Notice of Appeal on November 18, 2022.
69. McGuiness’ appeal is still pending and scheduled for oral argument
before the Delaware Supreme Court on November 15, 2023, at 10 a.m.
DEFENDANTS MACKLER AND DENNEY CO-DRAFTED A SEARCH

WARRANT WITH FALSE STATEMENTS AND MATERIAL OMISSIONS
70. Recently the Delaware Supreme Court unsealed portions of the
transcripts of McGuiness’ criminal trial.
19
71. At trial, Defendant Robinson disclosed he was not the sole author of the
probable cause affidavit which included numerous demonstrably false statements.in
violation of McGuiness’ constitutional rights.
72. Defendant Robinson disclosed that Defendants Mackler and Denney
co-authored the warrant with demonstrably false and misleading statements.
73. It is highly unusual for a chief deputy attorney general as Mackler to be
involved in the drafting of a search warrant.
74. Further, at the time of the drafting, Defendant Mackler had zero
experience in criminal trials in the State of Delaware.
75. In addition, at trial, Defendant Denney also admitted in co-drafting the
search warrant which included demonstrably false and misleading statements.
76. It was admitted at trial that Defendants Robinson, Denney, and Mackler
co-drafted the search warrant which included the demonstrably false and misleading
statements.
77. But for the false statements included in paragraphs 23 and 25 in the
search warrant, which were identical to paragraphs 31 and 32 of the indictment, (and
thus identically false), the structuring charges would not exist.
20
78. Prior to her indictment, the State, including Defendants McGuiness,
Denney, Mackler, and Robinson presented the criminal charges, including the
contract structuring charges to a Grand Jury.
79. Without question, the State provided false testimony to the Grand Jury
to obtain the indictment for the structuring charges.
Count One—Fourth Amendment Violation Against Defendants Denney,

Mackler, and Robinson
(42 U.S.C § 1983)
80. Plaintiff McGuiness incorporates by reference complaint paragraphs one
through Seventy-Nine, as set forth fully here.
81. 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)
82. Here, it was determined at trial that the affidavit submitted by
Defendant Robinson included false information.
83. The affidavit was drafted by Defendants Robinson, Denney, and
Mackler.
84. By information and belief, paragraphs 23 and 24 of the search warrant
were co-written by Defendants Robinson, Denney, and Mackler.
21
85. 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
of less than $5,000.00. DEFENDANT engaged in at least three other contracts, for
$5,000.00 reporting threshold. The MYCG contract was the only OAOA no-bid
$5,000.00 reporting threshold.
86. The records available to the State and Robinson as maintained by the
State’s automated and electronic accounting system called First State Financials
22
(“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.
“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.”
88. At the time of the affidavit containing the misleading information
regarding the purported theft of stolen items from the office, Defendants Robinson,
Mackler, Denney and other possible unknown members of the Department of Justice
were aware that the police had investigated the claim and determined the report to
be “crazy”.
Affidavit, Defendants Denney, Mackler, Robinson, and other possible 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
23
evidence of a crime.
90. Here, Defendants Denney, Mackler, Robinson and other possible
unknown members of the Department of Justice knowingly filed a false affidavit to
secure a search warrant in violation of Section 1983.
91. There is no doubt that Defendants Denney, Mackler, and 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.
92. 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
93. This is not a case where Defendants Denney, Mackler, Robinson, and
other unknown members of the Department of Justice acted in good faith or relied
on third parties who were lying.
94. Here, Defendants Denney, Mackler, 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.
24
95. At trial, Defendant Robinson took the witness stand and admitted that
he knew the information in the warrant was false.
96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Denney, Mackler, and
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
97. Plaintiffs McGuiness, Gross, and MYCG repeat and realleges
paragraphs 1 through 96 above as if specifically set forth herein.
98. In order to state a claim of defamation properly, a plaintiff must satisfy
five elements: (1) defamatory communication; (2) publication; (3) the
communication refers to the plaintiff; (4) a third party's understanding of the
communication's defamatory character; and (5) injury.
99. Slander is oral defamation.
100. 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.
25
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. 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
Accounting as required by that agency’s regulations.
104. FSF records were either in the possession of the Defendants or readily
accessible to them, as they are accessible online by any State agency.
105. At the press conference, Defendants Denney and Jennings
emphasized their complete knowledge of the facts of the investigation and
allegations in the indictment.
106. Defendant Denney stated the “indictment is the most detailed and as
26
thorough as an indictment” as any in the history of the State.
107. Defendant Jennings stated she was “laser beam focused” on the facts
of the investigation and “very focused” on the prosecution.
108. 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.
109. The statements made by Defendants Denney and Jennings concerning
Plaintiffs, were known to be false at the time they were made (as admitted by
Defendant Robinson) and caused injury to Plaintiffs.
110. 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’
statements.
111. The defamation defamed Plaintiff Gross and MYCG’s reputation and
credibility. Plaintiff Gross and MYCG suffered severe monetary damages as a result
of the defamation.
112. Count III of the State Indictments, the structuring charge, concerning
payment by the Auditor’s office to Christie Gross and MYCG was based on
information which the Defendants knew was false at the time it was filed.
27
113. The Defendants knew that the State could never substantiate its claim
and Defendant Robinson provided false sworn statements to secure the indictment
that Defendant announced in a forthcoming press release and press conference to the
media at large, using the MYCG name in multiple places to defame Plaintiffs Gross
and MYCG.
114. Defendants falsely stated that Gross and MYCG entered into a
"sweetheart deal" with McGuiness to "avoid competitive bidding process" and
"avoid public oversight with structured contract payments," implying they
knowingly and voluntarily entered into an arrangement and complied with unethical
contracting terms.
115. Defendants falsely stated regarding Gross and MYCG "their very
purpose is to help people campaigning for office" [i.e., taking public dollars to
provide campaign services]. At the time these statements were made, Defendant had
knowledge that Gross solely worked on public policy for Plaintiff McGuiness and
not campaigning. The Defendants omitted that Gross and MYCG also “craft public
policy solutions for elected officials nationwide” and that her experience comprises
“over twenty years’ experience advising state and local government officials,” with
a resume that includes advising state and local officials in Delaware or that
“communications” and “public policy expertise” is listed among MYCG’s products
28
and services.
116. Defendants falsely stated that the communication services provided
by Defendants Gross and MYCG were “somewhat vague" and "structured a contract
to avoid scrutiny and stay under a threshold" and "invoice manipulation".
117. Throughout the trial against McGuiness, the press media continually
repeated Defendant's talking points based on false information.
118. For over the eleven (11) months that followed, media accounts on
various indictments and pre-trial hearings continually defamed Plaintiffs Gross and
MYCG portraying Plaintiff Gross’ name and MYCG’s name in a negative light
repeating false statements made in the indictments with false information.
119. It was necessary for the Plaintiffs 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
120. The above paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by
reference as if set in full.
121. Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants Robinson, Denney,
Snyder-Mackler, and Jennings, individually, jointly, and/or in the alternative for
29
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, interest and costs of suit,
and such relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
122. Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants Robinson, Denney,
Snyder-Mackler, 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.
PLAINTIFFS’ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
123. 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.
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: October 11, 2023
30
Case 1:23-cv-00894-JLH Document 5-1 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 53 PageID #: 288
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT %
EXHIBIT C
Payment Reference ID Payment Method Amount Currency Creation Date Payment Date Payment Status Supplier Name Supplier ID Supplier Location
984893 Electronic Funds Transfer 3,000.00 USD 1/14/2020 1/14/2020 Paid MY CAMPAIGN GROUP LLC 509907 ACH
EXHIBIT D
66
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. And you had it before you wrote the search
3 warrant; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And the spreadsheet from Division of Accounting
6 said one lump sum payment in August; right?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. And you knew that when you wrote the search
9 warrant; right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you told the court that there were multiple
12 payments in August, didn't you?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that's false; right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you told a court under oath that there were
17 multiple payments under $5,000 in September, multiple,
18 more than one; right?
19 A. There were more than one payment in September.
20 Q. That wasn't my question. You told the court
21 under oath there were multiple payments under $5,000 in
22 September; correct?
23 A. Correct.
67
1 Q. That's false?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And you knew it when you wrote the search
4 warrant; right?
5 A. Correct.
6 MR. WOOD: No further questions, Judge.
7 THE COURT: Can I ask, as a result of the
8 search warrant, the execution of the search warrant, did
9 you receive documentation -- did you actually seize
10 documentation that day?
11 THE WITNESS: We were sent the My Campaign
12 Group invoices and the spreadsheet with the total amount
13 of the payment; we received that later via e-mail from
14 an employee of AOA.
15 THE COURT: So you didn't seize documents that
16 day. As a result of the search warrant, they provided
17 those documents to you.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes. They were e-mailed later.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. WOOD: That's not my understanding, Judge.
21 There were lots of documents seized. The search warrant
22 that relates --
23 THE COURT: The next question is that the

EXHIBIT E
14-41-7E-9-WARRAN-TRE INDICTMENT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
) INDICTMENT BY THE GRAND JURY
V. )
)
KATHLEEN K. McGUINESS ) I.-1)D. NO. 2110001942
The Grand Jury charges that:
Introduction and Background Relevant to All Charges
At all times material to this Indictment:
1. KATHLEEN K. MCGUINESS ("DEFENDANT") is the duly elected Auditor

of
Accounts for the State of Delaware, having been elected to that statewide office in 2018 and
sworn in on January 1, 2019. At all times relevant to this Indictment she was serving in her
official capacity of Auditor of Accounts or entering into State contracts in anticipation of her
official service.
2. The Auditor of Accounts "conduct[s] postaudits of all the financial

transactions of
all state agencies" and has "sole responsibility" for the state's audits. The Auditor is responsible
for ensuring that, among other criteria, "all expenditures have been legal and proper and made
only for the purposes contemplated in the funding acts or other pertinent regulations." Audits
must also "be made in conformity with generally accepted auditing principles and practices."
The Auditor is permitted to "[e]mploy such qualified office personnel and trained and
experienced field personnel as are required to carry out such duties[.]"
3. DEFENDANT is a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), a trade association
A347
membership that requires an entrance exam and "denotes proven expertise in fraud prevention,
A348
detection and deterrence. CFEs around the world help protect the global economy by uncovering
fraud and implementing processes to prevent fraud from occurring in the first place."
COUNT ONE,. A MISDEMEANOR
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: VIOLATION OF THE STATE OFFICIALS' CODE OF
CONDUCT, in violation of Title 29, Section 5805 of the Delaware Code.

4. In early March of 2020, the Office of Auditor of Accounts ("14,44)AOAOA")
employed several "casual-seasonal" employees. A casual-seasonal employee, under Delaware state
employment code, may be employed by the State on a temporary basis in order to assist agencies.
Casual-seasonal employees are required to work thirty (30) hours per week or less; otherwise,
special permission is required annually. Generally, a full-time position in state employment is
based on a thirty-seven-and-one-half (37.5) hour week.
5. Early in her tenure, DEFENDANT assumed hiring decision-making for
casual-seasonal employees. Full-time employees were discouraged from interacting with the
casual-seasonal employees.
6. On or about March 12, 2020, Delaware Governor John Carney declared a State of
Emergency, to begin on March 13, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Following the State of
Emergency, three casual-seasonal employees at the OAOA experienced a substantial reduction in work
hours.
7. On or about May 5, 2020, DEFENDANT informed one casual-seasonal employee,
EMPLOYEE 41, that EMPLOYEE l's employment was ending because of lack of available work.
EMPLOYEE 1 was terminated on or about May 18, 2020. From the State of Emergency onset
until EMPLOYEE -12sl's termination on or about May 18, 2020, EMPLOYEE 1
A349
worked a total of 42 hours, or 4.67 hours per week. In the two months preceding the State of
Emergency, EMPLOYEE 1 worked a total of 65 hours, or 8.125 hours per week.
8. On or about June 13, 2020, a second casual-seasonal employee, EMPLOYEE 2,
stopped working at the OAOA because of lack of available work, due to the pandemic. From the
State of Emergency onset until EMPLOYEE 2's final day on or about June 13, 2020,
EMPLOYEE 2 worked a total of 64.5 hours, or 4.96 hours per week. In the two months
preceding the State of Emergency, EMPLOYEE 2 worked a total of 187 hours, or 23.375 hours
per week.
9. On or about July 6, 2020, a third casual-seasonal employee, EMPLOYEE 3,
State of Emergency onset until EMPLOYEE 3's last day on or about July 6, 2020, EMPLOYEE
3 worked a total of 36.5 hours, or 2.28 hours per week. In the two months preceding the State of
10. On or about May 18, 2020, DEFENDANT hired her daughter
("DAUGHTER"), then a senior in high school, as a casual-seasonal employee in the OAOA.
Unlike the other casual-seasonal employees, DAUGHTER's casual-seasonal position
permitted her to work up to 37.5 hours per week, the maximum any casual-seasonal
employee is allowed under Delaware law.
11. On or about May 18, 2020, the final day of EMPLOYEE 441's employment,
DEFENDANT also hired DAUGHTER's friend ("FRIEND"), then a senior in high school, as
a casual-seasonal employee in the OAOA. FRIEND's position only permitted her to work up
to 29.5 hours per week.
A350
12. Neither DAUGHTER nor FRIEND were interviewed by OAOA staff prior to being
hired. DAUGHTER had signed employment paperwork earlier, dated March 22, 2020.
DEFENDANT provided the completed employment paperwork to her full-time staff and directed
them to begin DAUGHTER's and FRIEND's employment. There was no public posting of the
positions they filled. DEFENDANT did not delegate the hiring of her daughter to a subordinate.
13. DEFENDANT was the supervisor for DAUGHTER.

14. On or about DAUGHTER's first days as a state employee, DEFENDANT
provided DAUGHTER with access to a state vehicle.
15. In August of 2020, DAUGHTER enrolled at College of Charleston (South Carolina).
DAUGHTER remained on OAOA payroll while enrolled at college. DAUGHTER was paid $2,362.50
for hours accrued between August 29 and December 19, 2020.
16. By late August, FRIEND enrolled in college and was not on OAOA payroll
during the fall semester.
17. During calendar year 2020, DAUGHTER never utilized the State's Virtual Private
Network (VPN) to work remotely. OAOA entrance logs for six months from June to December 2020
indicate that DAUGHTER entered the office on fifteen (15) different dates, but never between August
10 and her return from college in December of 2020.
18. State email records show that DAUGHTER sent zero emails from August 17, 2020
to December 11, 2020.
19. As of August 28, 2021, DAUGHTER, a rising college sophomore, remained an OAOA
employee. She was listed as the OAOA Public Information Officer and is now listed as an "intern."
She has been paid a total of approximately $19,302.50 during state employment. FRIEND was paid
approximately $7,726.25.
A351
20. DAUGHTER's State of Delaware paychecks were deposited into a bank account in
which DEFENDANT is a named owner.
21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated herein.

22. DEFENDANT, from on or about the 22nd22id day of March 2020 until on or about
the 40'10'h day of September 2021, as a Delaware elected official and a public servant for all three
counties, and thereby a "state officer," did participate on behalf of the State of the Delaware in the
review or disposition of any matter pending before the State in which she had a personal or private
interest, which impaired her independence of judgment in the performance of her duties with respect
to any matter by hiring her daughter, a close relative, and giving her daughter a position with
advantages unavailable to other employees, including those whose work was discontinued during the
State of Emergency, thereby allowing her daughter to accrue a financial benefit to a greater extent
than such benefit would accrue to others who are members of the same class or group of persons, in
violation of Title 29, Section 5805 of the Delaware Code.
COUNT TWO. A FELONY
#N
THEFT in violation of Title 11, Section 841 of the Delaware Code.

24. DEFENDANT, from on or about the 22O-22Iday of March 2020 through on or
about the 10th day of September 2021, as a Delaware elected official and a public servant for all
three counties, did take, exercise control over, or obtain property of the State of Delaware,
consisting of money valued at more than $1,500.00, intending to deprive the State of Delaware of
the money, or to appropriate it.
A352
COUNT THREE. A MISDEMEANOR
"1%1
STRUCTURING: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PROCUREMENT LAW in
violation of Title 29, Section 6903 of the Delaware Code.
25. Title 29, Section 2906 of the Delaware Code sets forth the duties of the Auditor of
Accounts. DEFENDANT, as State's elected Auditor of Accounts, advertises to "serve[]
Delawareans by ensuring accountability in the use of taxpayer dollars to identify fraud, waste and
abuse . . ."
26. During a political campaign in 2016, DEFENDANT utilized the services of
My Campaign Group, reporting $18,916.00 for political campaign consultant services.
27. My Campaign Group is a political campaign consultancy that "was formed to
provide political candidates with comprehensive issues platforms — taking them from the
campaign trail to elected office." It is a company designed "for your campaign needs." Their
promotional materials say that their work "should not be left up to less experienced campaign
staff or interns to initiate. With MYCG as your trusted advisor, candidates will always be
confident they are armed with solid infematieninfoiniation and reliable policies . . .
throughout the campaign." It continues, "[A] well-structured issues platform can meet all the
expectations voters require in choosing a candidate — and that is where MYCG's services
come in."
28. On or before November 12, 2019, while serving as the elected Auditor of
Accounts, DEFENDANT approached My Campaign Group for a State contract for
professional services. DEFENDANT informed My Campaign Group that, if the initial contract
amount was less than $50,000, the contract could be awarded without entering the public
bidding process.
A353
29. On or about December 19, 2019, DEFENDANT entered into a $45,000.00 State
contract with My Campaign Group for "communication services." The contract was not submitted for
public bidding, nor was it required to be because it totaled less than $50,000.00.
30. Delaware Division of Accounting rules at the time allowed for twahasespurchase
orders or payments of $5,000.00 or less to be processed without special approval by the Division of
Accounting. The Budget and Accounting Policy Manual, before changing the threshold amount to
$10,000.00 on March 1, 2021, required that a purchase must not be split into multiple transactions
under $5,000.00 to circumvent the State Procurement Code.
31. Onln or about August-5, 2020, and again *win or about September—I-0, 2020, My
Campaign Group invoices exceeded $5,000.00 in total. but were split by wand-peidOAOA
to be drawn from separate funding sources in amounts of less than $5,000.00. DEFENDANT
eRgaged4wat4east-thfee-ether-e-entfaets7-ref-$4-57000410-eaeh, Eash-of4hose-eentfaets
iftel-aded-iad-iv-idue-I-paymeats-over-the4-570004X1-repeFting-threshekl,The-In August, OAOA
arranged for $4,875.00 to be paid to My Campaign Group eaatfaet-was-the-ea-Iy-OA-GA-He-hid
reporting-thceshelik.
with COVID-19 (Coronavirus Relief Fund) funds. and $4,500.00 to be paid to My
Campaign Group from the QAOA's General Fund. In September32. Ower--aheut-Augast-I, 2020,
My Campaign Group submitted a single invoice foam OAOA totaling $11,250.00. On August 5,
2-020,,At DEFENDANT's direction. OAOA arranged for this invoice to be paid in multiple
payments from multiple funding sources, each of which was under $5,000. This included DADA
using at least $4,900.00 in state money from outside of the original purchase order. $2,950.00 was
coded to be drawn from the General Fund, and $1,950 was coded to be paid with Coronavirus
Relief Funds. These payments appeared to bring the total amount paid to My Campaign Group
received4WO-paymentsr-Olle-fer--$41-8.7-5440-aud-one-fer-with electronic funds transfers to
$49,900.00 for the first contract, which was originally set at $4390.0045,000.
A354
32. On or about September 30, 2020, DEFENDANT Wet-instructed an AOAOAOA
employee to use his state purchase card to pay another $1,950.00 to My Campaign Group's founder's
Paypal account, en-geptember-144020;-whieh-was-Elene-eutsitle-ef-the-erigiffal-$46;000700
porehase-efder-with-the-Division-of-Aesoun4ng:-Adilitional-payments-were-mede-te-My
Campaign-Greffp-en-SeptembeF-I-0r242.0—ene-fec-$47-3-50-Mr-and-atiother-fer-42:9-544:440,-The
to satisfy the remaining balance
on My Campaign Ciromp's final invoice.
33. 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 My
Campaign Group contract was the only OAOA no-bid contract of at least $45,000.00 in which
each payment was arranged to draw from a funding source in an amount of less than $5,000.00.
A355
33. In-tetalr GAGA-paid-My-Gampaign-Gfeup-$49;9804)04er-the-fifst-een4faeh
originally :,.et at $15,000.
34. In or about the month of September 2020, DEFENDANT approached My Campaign
Group for a second contract, again suggesting to structure the contract for less than $50,000.00 in
order to avoid the State's public bidding process. DEFENDANT was informed that the second
contract should instead proceed through the State's public bidding process.
35. My Campaign Group has never had another State contract in Delaware or any other
state.
36. In or before the month of September 2020, My Campaign Group's founder
established a second company, Innovate Consulting, after a state employee in another state
declined to agree to a taxpayer-funded contract with a political campaign company.
37. Innovate Consulting successfully bid for the OAOA contract on September 23, 2020.
The contract was for a "subject matter expert and analyst on various topics," and "communication
of reports about topics including, but not limited to education and healthcare," and assisting "with
the writing and editing for initiatives." Between November 4, 2020 and February 12, 2021, OAOA
paid Innovate Consulting $77,500.00. The purchase card payment
A356
DEFENDANT instructed be paid into the founder's Paypal account was paid with state
funds that were set aside for the Innovate Consulting contract.
A357
39. DEFENDANT, on or between the 28th day of December, 2018, and the -1-Stl st day
of August, 2021, as an Delaware elected official and a public servant for all three counties, and
with intent to avoid compliance with Chapter 69 of Title 29 of the Delaware Code, did willfully
fragment or subdivide at least one contract for the purchase of professional services, by initially
structuring at least one contract at an amount under fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), and
structuring some payments under those contracts to be less than five thousand dollars
($5,000.00).
COUNT FOUR. A MISDEMEANOR
#N
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, in violation of Title 11, Section 1211(1) or 1211(3) of the
Delaware Code.
40. DEFENDANT, as referenced in Count One, hired her daughter and her daughter's
friend into state employment, affording her daughter benefits not available to other state
employees.
41. DEFENDANT, as referenced in Count Three, structured payments in a no-bid
contract to a political campaign consulting company. DEFENDANT performed this and other
official functions in a way intended to obtain a personal benefit.
43. DEFENDANT, on or between the -111st day of January, 2019, and the 4-st25th day of
August
March, 2-0242022 as an Delaware elected official and a public servant for all three counties, and
A358
when intending to obtain a personal benefit in her capacity as Auditor of Accounts, or to
cause harm to another person, committed an act constituting an unauthorized exercise of
official functions, knowing that the act was unauthorized, in violation of Title 11, Section
1211(1) of the Delaware Code, or when intending to obtain a personal benefit in her capacity as
Auditor of
A359
14-41-7E-9-WARRAN-TRE INDICTMENT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
) INDICTMENT BY THE GRAND JURY
V. )
)
KATHLEEN K. McGUINESS ) I.-1)D. NO. 2110001942
The Grand Jury charges that:
Introduction and Background Relevant to All Charges
At all times material to this Indictment:
1. KATHLEEN K. MCGUINESS ("DEFENDANT") is the duly elected Auditor

of
Accounts for the State of Delaware, having been elected to that statewide office in 2018 and
sworn in on January 1, 2019. At all times relevant to this Indictment she was serving in her
official capacity of Auditor of Accounts or entering into State contracts in anticipation of her
official service.
2. The Auditor of Accounts "conduct[s] postaudits of all the financial

transactions of
all state agencies" and has "sole responsibility" for the state's audits. The Auditor is responsible
for ensuring that, among other criteria, "all expenditures have been legal and proper and made
only for the purposes contemplated in the funding acts or other pertinent regulations." Audits
must also "be made in conformity with generally accepted auditing principles and practices."
The Auditor is permitted to "[e]mploy such qualified office personnel and trained and
experienced field personnel as are required to carry out such duties[.]"
3. DEFENDANT is a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), a trade association
A347
membership that requires an entrance exam and "denotes proven expertise in fraud prevention,
A348
detection and deterrence. CFEs around the world help protect the global economy by uncovering
fraud and implementing processes to prevent fraud from occurring in the first place."
COUNT ONE,. A MISDEMEANOR
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: VIOLATION OF THE STATE OFFICIALS' CODE OF
CONDUCT, in violation of Title 29, Section 5805 of the Delaware Code.

4. In early March of 2020, the Office of Auditor of Accounts ("14,44)AOAOA")
employed several "casual-seasonal" employees. A casual-seasonal employee, under Delaware state
employment code, may be employed by the State on a temporary basis in order to assist agencies.
Casual-seasonal employees are required to work thirty (30) hours per week or less; otherwise,
special permission is required annually. Generally, a full-time position in state employment is
based on a thirty-seven-and-one-half (37.5) hour week.
5. Early in her tenure, DEFENDANT assumed hiring decision-making for
casual-seasonal employees. Full-time employees were discouraged from interacting with the
casual-seasonal employees.
6. On or about March 12, 2020, Delaware Governor John Carney declared a State of
Emergency, to begin on March 13, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Following the State of
Emergency, three casual-seasonal employees at the OAOA experienced a substantial reduction in work
hours.
7. On or about May 5, 2020, DEFENDANT informed one casual-seasonal employee,
EMPLOYEE 41, that EMPLOYEE l's employment was ending because of lack of available work.
EMPLOYEE 1 was terminated on or about May 18, 2020. From the State of Emergency onset
until EMPLOYEE -12sl's termination on or about May 18, 2020, EMPLOYEE 1
A349
worked a total of 42 hours, or 4.67 hours per week. In the two months preceding the State of
8. On or about June 13, 2020, a second casual-seasonal employee, EMPLOYEE 2,
State of Emergency onset until EMPLOYEE 2's final day on or about June 13, 2020,
EMPLOYEE 2 worked a total of 64.5 hours, or 4.96 hours per week. In the two months
preceding the State of Emergency, EMPLOYEE 2 worked a total of 187 hours, or 23.375 hours
per week.
9. On or about July 6, 2020, a third casual-seasonal employee, EMPLOYEE 3,
State of Emergency onset until EMPLOYEE 3's last day on or about July 6, 2020, EMPLOYEE
3 worked a total of 36.5 hours, or 2.28 hours per week. In the two months preceding the State of
10. On or about May 18, 2020, DEFENDANT hired her daughter
("DAUGHTER"), then a senior in high school, as a casual-seasonal employee in the OAOA.
Unlike the other casual-seasonal employees, DAUGHTER's casual-seasonal position
permitted her to work up to 37.5 hours per week, the maximum any casual-seasonal
employee is allowed under Delaware law.
11. On or about May 18, 2020, the final day of EMPLOYEE 441's employment,
DEFENDANT also hired DAUGHTER's friend ("FRIEND"), then a senior in high school, as
a casual-seasonal employee in the OAOA. FRIEND's position only permitted her to work up
to 29.5 hours per week.
A350
EXHIBIT F
McGuiness, Kathleen (Auditors)
’rom: Davis, Patricia (DOJ)

Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 1:50 PM
To: Sewell, Aiaina (Auditors)
Cc: Gulli, Amy (Auditors); McGuiness, Kathleen (Auditors)
Subject: RE: Scheduling a Meeting
Switch-Messageld: 38485da881444063a6f00ea5844220a0
Aiaina: I don't think there is anything further that you or anyone in management over there needs to do with
regard to the missing planner. Based on the information you've provided me, you guys sent an email around
asking if anyone had seen the planner, the employee requested the police be called, and you called the police.
I'm happy to hear you are cooperating with the police investigation and provided a copy of the surveillance
footage. You are under no obligation to "close the loop" with the employee and I recommend you let this
sleeping dog lie, unless or until we hear from the employee again.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need anything further from me on this.
Thanks,
Patty
ioixi tP. CD ciaX.x
’atricia A. Davis
Deputy State Solicitor
102 W. Water Street
Dover, DE 19904
(302) 257-3233 Phone
(302) 739-7652 Fax
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message and any attachment(s) are confidential and may be subject to the
attorney/client privilege and/or work product immunity. This e-mail is only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If
you have received this e-maii in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail, then delete this
message and any attachment(s) from your system. Any unintended transmission expressly shall not waive the
attorney/client or any other privilege.
From: Sewell, Aiaina (Auditors) <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 1:43 PM
To: Davis, Patricia (DOJ) <[email protected]>
Cc: Gulli, Amy (Auditors) <[email protected]>
Patty:
Update on RK Planner - Kathy has cooperated with CpI. Creech and provided him with a USB drive of the camera
'ootage he requested. We haven't heard from (or anyone) about the planner at all this week and part of last
week.... Should I ask if she's located the planner yet? And if not, kindly ask her to please tell me if/when she
does locate it?
1
During our internal investigation, no one has seen the planner or saw anyone else with it. Do you have any suggestions
for next steps? I don't want to leave this situation hanging if there are additional steps that I can take.
Thanks, and happy Friday!
Alaina Sewell, Chief of Staff to the State Auditor

Delaware Office of Auditor of Accounts
Office: 302-857-3931 [email protected]
Click here to Visit the State Auditor's Website
Click Here to View the State Auditor’s Newsletter
Townsend Building | 401 Federal Street | Dover, DE 19901
Report Fraud! 1-800-55-FRAUD (37283) | auditor.delaware.gov
KA I II I I I S
McGUINESS
DELAWARE
STATE AUDITOR
Rl I’ORI FRAUD: l-S()()-55-l RAUD
1’1 |»| III Xu.Id i
From: Sewell, Alaina (Auditors)

Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 3:44 PM
To: Davis, Patricia (DOJ) <PatriciaA.Davis(S)deiaware.gov>
Patty:
Update on situation #1RK Planner- The Capitol PD officer, CpI. Creech, called me to say that it wasn't necessary for him
to review the camera footage since we were doing our own internal investigation. Kathy wanted to be diligent in
addressing this matter, so she requested that the officer review camera footage with her. On Tuesday, CpI. Creech and
Kathy reviewed the footage together, and it was determined that no one was seen taking Rachael's planner. The officer
asked for a copy of the footage, and Kathy is complying with that request.
The cop also stated that he thought was "10-81" and then he did the finger in a circle motion around the head
to indicate he thought she was crazy. CpI Creech also stated that he "knows about her" and she has a negative
reputation among the Capitol PD. The officer also said that accused both Kathy and me for taking her planner.
2
Thank you!

Office: 302-857-3931 Alaina.SewellTLidelaware.gov
Click here to Visit the State Auditor’s Website
Townsend Building | 401 Federal Street: Dover, DE 19901
k kTill I I \
McGlJINESS
DELAWARE
STATE AUDITOR
RI POR I IR ALD: 1-S00-.CM RAVI)
From: Sewell, Alaina (Auditors)

Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 1:08 PM
To: Davis, Patricia (DOJ) <[email protected]>
Subject: Scheduling a Meeting
Patty,
Good afternoon and I hope all is well! It's my understanding that you're working with Amy on something right now that
takes priority, but I'd like to schedule a meeting with you sometime this week per the advisement of DHR regarding two
situations:
1. missing planner. (I made sure to include you on my Friday recap email and my update email this
morning to keep you informed on the latest).
2.
I'm happy to provide more information if necessary. Please let me know your availability.
Thanks!
3

Office: 302-857-3931 [email protected] v
flick here to Visit the State Auditor’s Website
Townsend Building | 401 Federal Street | Dover, DE 19901
kvnn i i\
McGIINESS
I>E1 AWARE
SEYFE AUDITOR
Rl I’OR 1 I RAUD: l-Stltl-SS-FRAL I)
i>' Audit..* I>l Xu.i
4
EXHIBIT G
C-91
1 period; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. My Campaign Group received one
4 electronic fund transfer as a result of those
5 August entries; correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And anybody who wrote that My
8 Campaign Group received two payments is
9 making a false statement; right?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And as a result of that September
12 10th payment, understanding there was a PCard
13 payment, the fact of the matter is that other
14 than the PCard payment -- and we'll get to
15 that -- My Campaign Group received one
16 payment on or about September 10th of 2020;
17 isn't that right?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. And anybody who wrote that My
20 Campaign Group received two payments on
21 September 10th of 2020 is making a false
22 statement; isn't that correct?
23 A. Yes, it is.
A3143
C-101
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. There's nothing improper about it at
3 all?
4 A. No, there is not.
5 Q. There is nothing illegal about it at
6 all; right?
7 A. You are correct.
8 Q. And in that colored chart that
9 showed the different payment lines, you
10 weren't trying to say that My Campaign Group
11 was receiving multiple payments; right?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And that chart, in fact, does not
14 say that My Campaign Group was receiving
15 multiple payments; correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And anybody who said that chart says
18 My Campaign Group received multiple payments
19 made an untrue statement; correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 MR. DENNEY: Objection, Your Honor.
22 Can we approach?
23 (Sidebar conference held.)
A3153
C-111
1 Q. And you forwarded this information
2 on to the Attorney General's Office sometime
3 in July or early August of 2021; right?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. So as of whenever you forwarded that
6 information, July or early August of 2021,
7 you told the Department of Justice that the
8 Division of Accounting approved two vouchers
9 since they exceeded $5,000?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And so if anybody said that there
12 were multiple payments all under $5,000, that
13 would be a false statement relating to August
14 and September; right?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And anybody who had the benefit of
17 reading this email would know it was a false
18 statement; correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And, here, the next paragraph, you
21 talk about the voucher that was pushed
22 back -- and that's the one that we saw in the
23 spreadsheet a little while ago and which we
A3163
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KATHLEEN KRAMEDAS
MCGUINESS, CHRISTIE R. CIVIL ACTION NO.
GROSS, AND MY CAMPAIGN 1:23-cv-00894-MN
GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
FIRST PROPOSED SECOND
vs. AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE 4TH, AND 14th
KATHLEEN JENNINGS, AMENDMENTS OF THE
MARK DENNEY, ALEXANDER CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
SNYDER-MACKLER AND STATES AND SECTION 1983 OF
FRANK ROBINSON, THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND
IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL COMMON LAW SLANDER
CAPACITIES
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Kathleen McGuiness, Christie R. Gross, and My Campaign
Group LLC, by way of Complaint against Defendants Kathleen Jennings, Mark
Denney, Alexander Snyder-Mackler, and Frank Robinson 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 Defendants Frank Robinson, Mark

Denney, and Alexander Snyder-Mackler. In addition, Plaintiff McGuiness is seeking
damages for claims of slander against Defendants Denney and Jennings.
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)
4. Plaintiffs Christie R. Gross and My Campaign Group LLC (MYCG)
are seeking damages for defamatory statements by Defendants Kathleen Jennings,
Mark Denney, Alexander Snyder-Mackler, and Frank Robinson.
Jurisdiction and Venue
5. Plaintiff McGuiness incorporates by reference complaint paragraphs
one through three, as set forth fully here.
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
6. 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.
7. Plaintiff McGuiness’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are
further authorized by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R Civ. P”) 57 and 65,
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.
8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants
reside, and the events occurred in the District of Delaware.
PARTIES
9. Plaintiff McGuiness served as Delaware State Auditor from January
2019 until October 2022.
10. Plaintiff Christie R. Gross is the founder and owner of Plaintiff My
Campaign Group, LLC (MYCG) and Innovate Consulting, LLC. Plaintiff MYCG
was contracted to provide communication services that expanded to include public
policy work as a subject matter expert for the Auditor’s Office beginning November
2019 and extending to February 2021, spanning two separate contracts.
11. Defendant Kathleen Jennings (Defendant Jennings) serves as
Delaware’s 46th Attorney General. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant
3
Jennings was acting under the color of law in her individual capacity as an Attorney
General for the State of Delaware.
12. 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.
13. Defendant Alexander Snyder-Mackler has been the Chief Deputy
Attorney General to Defendant Jennings since May 2019. Mackler was previously
Deputy Legal Counsel to Vice President Joe Biden. At all times mentioned herein,
Defendant Mackler was acting under the color of law in his individual capacity as a
Deputy Attorney General for the State of Delaware.
14. Defendant Frank Robinson is the Chief Special Investigator for the
Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant
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.
4
DEFENDANT ROBINSON USES FALSE INFORMATION TO OBTAIN A

SEARCH WARRANT AGAINST MCGUINESS
15. 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.
16. 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, LLC and Innovate Consulting, LLC
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.)
17. 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.”
18. 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
5
$5,000.00 reporting threshold. The MYCG contract was the only OAOA2 no-bid
$5,000.00 reporting threshold.”
19. 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.”
20. Defendants Robinson, Mackler, and Denney along with other possible
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.
6
21. Specifically, the information upon which Defendants Robinson,
Mackler, Denney, and other possible unknown members of the Department of
Justice did relied not support paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Affidavit of Probable
Cause.
22. 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.
23. 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.)
24. Specifically, Defendant Robinson and other unknown members of the
7
Department of Justice relied on sources such as a spreadsheet called “My Campaign
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.
25. 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.
26. At the time that the search warrant was drafted, records available to
Defendants Robinson, Mackler, Denney and other possible 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.
8
27. 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)
28. 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.)
29. 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).
9
30. The result was a finding of probable cause that would have been
unjustified in their absence.
31. In turn, the Search Warrant should not have been issued absent the
false information provided by Defendants Robinson, Mackler, and Denney.
“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.”
33. The obvious implication of paragraphs 37 and 38 is that the Auditor's
Office’s video system might have recorded the theft of the employee’s item.
However, Defendants Robinson, Mackler, Denney, and other possible 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”).
10
34. 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
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.
Affidavit, Defendants Robinson, Mackler, Denney and other possible 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.
36. 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
37. 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.
11
38. During McGuiness’ criminal trial, Robinson admitted under oath that
certain assertions in paragraphs 23 and 24 were false.
39. 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).
40. The Council does not require formal bidding for professional service
contracts under $50,000.00.
41. 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, GROSS AND MYCG AT THE
OCTOBER 11, 2021, PRESS CONFERENCE
42. On October 11, 2021, the Department of Justice, represented by
Defendant Jennings, Defendant Denney, and Defendant Chief Deputy
Attorney General, Alexander Mackler held a press conference announcing an
indictment against Plaintiff McGuiness. See below:
12
https://www.delawareonline.com/videos/news/2021/10/11/delaware-state-auditor-kathy-
mcguiness-indicted-two-felony-charges-attorney-general-kathy-jennings/6094498001/
43. 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 My Campaign Group 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.

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.”
44. 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.”
14
45. Defendant Jennings emphasized her involvement in the case by stating
she was “laser beam focused on the prosecution and on the investigation.”
46. 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”).
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. At the Franks hearing, Defendant Robinson never intimated that
anyone else was responsible for drafting the affidavit.
51. In light of Defendant Robinson’s testimony, the trial court suppressed
the seized ESI.
15
52. Plaintiff McGuiness’ criminal jury trial began on June 14, 2022.
53. 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)
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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)
16
57. 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)
58. 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.
59. 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).
60. Defendant Robinson testified that the affidavit was written by a team.
61. Previously, Plaintiff was not aware of what other members of the
Attorney General’s team participated in providing the false information in the

17
affidavit. Plaintiff now knows Defendants Mackler and Denney also co-authored the
affidavit containing the false information.
62. Defendants Robinson, Mackler, Denney, and Jennings, possessed
information contrary to the information submitted in the Probable Affidavit and
original indictment and statements they made during the press conference.
63. On July 1, 2022, the jury found McGuiness not guilty of Counts Two
and Five and guilty of Counts One, Three, and Four.
64. Judge Carpenter issued a Post Trial Decision dismissing the Structure
charge ultimately deciding that Plaintiff’s acts did not constitute a crime.
65. On 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
penalties listed in Section 6903(a). The problem with relying upon Section
18
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)
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. McGuiness filed a Notice of Appeal on November 18, 2022.
69. McGuiness’ appeal is still pending and scheduled for oral argument
before the Delaware Supreme Court on November 15, 2023, at 10 a.m.
DEFENDANTS MACKLER AND DENNEY CO-DRAFTED A SEARCH

WARRANT WITH FALSE STATEMENTS AND MATERIAL OMISSIONS
70. Recently the Delaware Supreme Court unsealed portions of the
transcripts of McGuiness’ criminal trial.
19
71. At trial, Defendant Robinson disclosed he was not the sole author of the
probable cause affidavit which included numerous demonstrably false statements.in
violation of McGuiness’ constitutional rights.
72. Defendant Robinson disclosed that Defendants Mackler and Denney
co-authored the warrant with demonstrably false and misleading statements.
73. It is highly unusual for a chief deputy attorney general such as Mackler
to be involved in the drafting of a search warrant.
74. Further, at the time of the drafting, Defendant Mackler had zero
experience in criminal trials in the State of Delaware.
75. In addition, at trial, Defendant Denney also admitted to co-drafting the
search warrant which included demonstrably false and misleading statements.
76. It was admitted at trial that Defendants Robinson, Denney, and Mackler
co-drafted the search warrant which included demonstrably false and misleading
statements.
77. But for the false statements included in paragraphs 23 and 25 in the
search warrant, which were identical to paragraphs 31 and 32 of the indictment, (and
thus identically false), the structuring charges would not exist.
20
78. Prior to her indictment, the State, including Defendants McGuiness,
Denney, Mackler, and Robinson presented the criminal charges, including the
contract structuring charges to a Grand Jury.
79. Without question, the State provided false testimony to the Grand Jury
to obtain the indictment for the structuring charges.
Count One—Fourth Amendment Violation Against Defendants Denney,

Mackler, and Robinson
(42 U.S.C § 1983)
80. Plaintiff McGuiness incorporates by reference complaint paragraphs one
through Seventy-Seven Seventy-Nine, as set forth fully here.
81. 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)
82. Here, it was determined at trial that the affidavit submitted by
Defendant Robinson included false information.
83. The affidavit was drafted by Defendants Robinson, Denney, and
Mackler.
84. By information and belief, paragraphs 23 and 24 of the search warrant
were co-written by Defendants Robinson, Denney, and Mackler.
21
85. 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
of less than $5,000.00. DEFENDANT engaged in at least three other contracts, for
$5,000.00 reporting threshold. The MYCG contract was the only OAOA no-bid
$5,000.00 reporting threshold.
86. The records available to the State and Robinson as maintained by the
State’s automated and electronic accounting system called First State Financials
22
(“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.
“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.”
88. At the time of the affidavit containing the misleading information
regarding the purported theft of stolen items from the office, Defendants Robinson,
Mackler, Denney and other possible unknown members of the Department of Justice
were aware that the police had investigated the claim and determined the report to
be “crazy”.
Affidavit, Defendants Denney, Mackler, Robinson, and other possible 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
23
evidence of a crime.
90. Here, Defendants Denney, Mackler, Robinson, and other possible
unknown members of the Department of Justice knowingly filed a false affidavit to
secure a search warrant in violation of Section 1983.
91. There is no doubt that Defendants Denney, Mackler, 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.
92. 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
93. This is not a case where Defendants Denney, Mackler, Robinson, and
other unknown members of the Department of Justice acted in good faith or relied
on third parties who were lying.
94. Here, Defendants Denney, Mackler, 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.
24
95. At trial, Defendant Robinson took the witness stand and admitted that
he knew the information in the warrant was false.
96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Denney, Mackler, and
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
97. Plaintiff McGuiness repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 59 95
above as if specifically set forth herein.
98. In order to state a claim of defamation properly, a plaintiff must satisfy
five elements: (1) defamatory communication; (2) publication; (3) the
communication refers to the plaintiff; (4) a third party's understanding of the
communication's defamatory character; and (5) injury.
99. Slander is oral defamation.
100. 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.
25
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. 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
Accounting as required by that agency’s regulations.
104. FSF records were either in the possession of the Defendants or readily
accessible to them, as they are accessible online by any State agency.
105. At the press conference, Defendants Denney and Jennings
emphasized their complete knowledge of the facts of the investigation and
allegations in the indictment.
106. Defendant Denney stated the “indictment is the most detailed and as
26
thorough as an indictment” as any in the history of the State.
107. Defendant Jennings stated she was “laser beam focused” on the facts
of the investigation and “very focused” on the prosecution.
108. 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.
109. 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 Plaintiffs McGuiness.
110. 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’
statements.
111. The defamation defamed Plaintiffs Gross and MYCG’s reputation and
credibility. Plaintiff Gross and MYCG suffered severe monetary damages as a result
of the defamation.
112. Count III of the State Indictments, the structuring charge, concerning
payment by the Auditor’s office to Christie Gross and MYCG was based on
information which the Defendants knew was false at the time it was filed.
27
113. The Defendants knew that the State could never substantiate its claim
and Defendant Robinson provided false sworn statements to secure the indictment
that Defendant announced in a forthcoming press release and press conference to the
media at large, using the MYCG name in multiple places to defame Plaintiffs Gross
and MYCG.
114. Defendants falsely stated that Gross and MYCG entered into a
"sweetheart deal" with McGuiness to "avoid competitive bidding process" and
"avoid public oversight with structured contract payments," implying they
knowingly and voluntarily entered into an arrangement and complied with unethical
contracting terms.
115. Defendants falsely stated regarding Gross and MYCG "their very
purpose is to help people campaigning for office" [i.e., taking public dollars to
provide campaign services]. At the time these statements were made, Defendant had
knowledge that Gross solely worked on public policy for Plaintiff McGuiness and
not campaigning. The Defendants omitted that Gross and MYCG also “craft public
policy solutions for elected officials nationwide” and that her experience comprises
“over twenty years’ experience advising state and local government officials,” with
a resume that includes advising state and local officials in Delaware or that
“communications” and “public policy expertise” is listed among MYCG’s products
28
and services.
116. Defendants falsely stated that the communication services provided
by Defendants Gross and MYCG were “somewhat vague" and "structured a contract
to avoid scrutiny and stay under a threshold" and "invoice manipulation".
117. Throughout the trial against McGuiness, the press media continually
repeated Defendant’s talking points based on false information.
118. For over the eleven (11) months that followed, media accounts on
various indictments and pre-trial hearings continually defamed Plaintiffs Gross and
MYCG portraying Plaintiff Gross’ name and MYCG’s name in a negative light
repeating false statements made in the indictments with false information.
119. It was necessary for the Plaintiffs 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
120. The above paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by
reference as if set in full.
121. Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Robinson, Denney,
Snyder-Mackler, and Jennings, individually, jointly, and/or in the alternative for
29
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, interest and costs of suit,
and such relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
122. Plaintiffs demands judgment against Defendants Robinson, Denney,
Snyder-Mackler, 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
123. Plaintiffs asserts her their rights under the Seventh Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution and demand, in accordance with Federal Rule 38, a trial by jury
on all issues.
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: September 28 October 11, 2023
30

McGuiness Updated Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

McGuiness Updated Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McGuiness Updated Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-00894-JLH Document 5 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 258

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs Kathleen McGuiness, Christie R. Gross, and My Campaign

Group LLC, by way of Complaint against Defendants Kathleen Jennings, Mark

Denney, Alexander Snyder-Mackler and Frank Robinson says:

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

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

statutory vehicle 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Frank Robinson, Mark

Denney, and Alexander Snyder-Mackler. In addition, Plaintiff McGuiness is seeking

damages for claims of slander against Defendants Denney and Jennings.

2. Plaintiff McGuiness seeks a monetary judgment against Defendant

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

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

4. Plaintiffs Christie R. Gross and My Campaign Group LLC (MYCG) is

seeking damages for defamatory statements by Defendants Kathleen Jennings, Mark

Denney, Alexander Snyder-Mackler, and Frank Robinson.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference complaint paragraphs one through

three, as set forth fully here.

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

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

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

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

9. Plaintiff McGuiness served as Delaware State Auditor from January

2019 until October 2022.

10. Plaintiff Christie R. Gross is the founder and owner of Plaintiff My

was contracted to provide communication services that expanded to include public

2019 and extending to February 2021, spanning two separate contracts.

11. Defendant Kathleen Jennings (Defendant Jennings) serves as

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

General for the State of Delaware.

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

13. Defendant Alexander Snyder-Mackler has been the Chief Deputy

Deputy Attorney General for the State of Delaware.

DEFENDANT ROBINSON USES FALSE INFORMATION TO OBTAIN A

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

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

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

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

establishment of probable cause.”

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

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

$5,000.00 reporting threshold.”

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

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

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

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

was also made outside of the purchase order.”

unknown members of the Department of Justice provided false information and

21. Specifically, the information upon which Defendants Robinson,

22. 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

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