Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amended Motion To Dismiss Illinois Eavesdropping Case

Amended Motion To Dismiss Illinois Eavesdropping Case

Ratings:

4.0

(1)
|Views: 1,700 |Likes:
Published by anacondakay044
Annabel Melongo's Motion to dismiss her Eavesdropping Case. Mr Podlasek and Julie Gunnigle, both Assistant State Prosecutor at the Cook County Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Office,are prosecuting the case. Mrs. Pamela Taylor, an assistant administrator at the Cook County Clerk Office, was taped when Ms. Melongo discovered that her arraignment transcript was altered to reflect a proceeding that never happened.
Annabel Melongo's Motion to dismiss her Eavesdropping Case. Mr Podlasek and Julie Gunnigle, both Assistant State Prosecutor at the Cook County Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Office,are prosecuting the case. Mrs. Pamela Taylor, an assistant administrator at the Cook County Clerk Office, was taped when Ms. Melongo discovered that her arraignment transcript was altered to reflect a proceeding that never happened.

More info:

Published by: anacondakay044 on Feb 09, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/23/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THECIRCUITCOURTOFCOOK
COUNTY,ILLINOISCRIMINAL
DIVISION
StateOf
lllinois,Plaintiff,
No.
10GR0809201
JudgeSteven
J.
Goebel.
Annabel
K.
MelongoDefendant,AmendedMotion ToDeclare Statute
UnconstitutionalAnd
To
Dismiss
Now
comes Annabel K. Melongo,ProSe, andrespectfully asks thisHonorable
Court
to dismiss
the
Eavesdroppingchargespendingagainst her becausethe Eavesdroppingstatute
is
unconstitutionalon
its
faceand
as
applied
to
theDefendantand violates substantiveFreeSpeech,FreedomofPress,
Petition
and Due Process
guarantees.
Asgrounds
of
this motion,
the
Defendant states:
l.
Jurisdiction
OfThis
Court
a.ThisHonorao,.-rmattersofprotectedFederalrightsandtoenforce
those
rights
wherever
necessary,since
"the
application
ofthe
First Amendment
to the
facts
of
a
particularcase
is
not an issue
for
a
juryto
resolve,butis alegalquestionfor the court to decide",Pottsv.
Cityof
Lafayette,121F.3d
1106.
Furthermore
,Youngerv.
Hanis,401
U.S.37,45(1971),
prescribedthatany defendantshould
firstset
up
andrelyuponhis defensein
a
statecourtbeforeseekingredress
in
federal court.
b.
On
Decembe(13b,2010, Judge
Brosnahanpreviouslydenied
the
Defendanfsmotion
claiming
the
lllinois
Eavesdropping
tobe
unconstitutional
based
on
People
v.
Bearsley,115
lll.
2d47(Ul.
'1986).
While
the
motion
was
properlydeniedbecause
it
failed
the
burdenofproofdemonstrating
the
statute
tobe
unconstitutional,
thistime
around,
the
Defendant
seeks
dismissalclaiming the
lllinois
EavesdroppingStatuteunconstitutional
on its face
and
as
applied
to
her
because
its
violates
First
Amendment
and
Due
Process
guarantees
ofthe
United
States
and
lllinoisConstitutions.
 
a-
ll.
The
lllinois
Eavesdroppinq
Act,
720ILCS5/14ThelllinoisEavesdroppingStatute,720 ILCS
5114
et
seq.
("The
Act"),states
that:
"
Apersoncommits eavesdroppingwhen
he:
(1)
Knowingly and intentionallyuses
an
eavesdroppingdeviceforthepurposeof hearing
and
recordingall or any
part
of anyconversation or intercepts, retains,or transcribeselectroniccommunicationunless
he
doesso
(A)
withthe consentof all
of
thepartiestosuchconversationor electronic communication or
(B)in
accordance with
Article
1
08A
or
Article
1088of the"Codeof CriminalProcedureof
1963",
approvedAugust 14,
1963,as amended"..
(2)
Uses or divulges, except as authorized
by
Article
108A
or
108B
of the"Codeof CriminalProcedureof
1963",
approvedAugust14,
1963,
as amended,anyinformationwhich he
knows
orreasonablyshould know wasobtainedthroughtheuse of
an
eavesdropping device."
The
Actdefines
an
eavesdroppingdevice as being
"any
device capable of beingused to
hear
orrecord oralconversation orintercept,retain
or
transcribeelectronicconversations whether
such
conversations or electronic communicationare conductedinperson,
by
telephone,or
by
any othermeans;providedhowever, that thisdefinition shall not includedevices
used
for the restoration
of
thedeaf or hard-of-hearing to normalorpartialhearing."
The
Act,
as
amended
in
1994,
adoptedanewdefinition of
a
conversationas
"anyoral
communication between
2
or morepersonsregardless
of
whether oneormore
of
thepartiesintendedtheir communication to
be
of aprivatenature undercircumstancesjustifyingthatexpectation."ThisAmendment wasspecifically adopted to reversearuling in Bearsleywhich
an
element of crime was"circumstanceswhich entitle thepartiesto a conversation to
believe
that
the
conversation
is
privateand cannot
be
heard
by
others whoare acting
in
alawful manner."Bearsleyat 53(emphasisadded).Pursuant 1o720 ILCS5/14-3(i),theAct allows civilianstorecord
a
conversation without theconsentof allpartiesonly when"recordingofaconversation made
by
or
at
the requestof aperson,
not
a
law
enforcement officer or agent of a lawenforcementofficer, who
isa
partyto the conversation,underreasonablesuspicionthatanother
party
to the conversation
is
committing,
is
about to commit or
has
committed
a
criminal offense against thepersonor
a
memberof
his
orher immediate household,
b.
c.
d.
 
and there
is
reasontobelieve thatevidenceof the criminaloffensemay
be
obtained
by
therecording."
e.
Pursuantto 720 ILCS
5114-4(a),
theAct statesthat
a
firstviolation
is
aclass4Felony,and
a
secondor subsequentoffense
a
class
3.
f.
Pursuantto 720ILCS
5114-4(b),
theeavesdropping of anoral conversationoran electroniccommunicationbetween any lawenforcementofficer, state'sattorney,assistantstate's attorney,theattorneygeneral,assistant attorneygeneral,or
a
judge,while
in
theperformanceof
his
or herofficialduties, if
not
authorized
by
this Articleorpropercourt order,
is a
class
1
felony.
lll.
FactsOf
TheGase
a.
On October31,2006,the Defendantwas charged withComputertamperingalleging remotelydeleting files, mostly financial,belonging toSave-A-LifeFoundation,
a
nowdefunct non-for-profitorganization withpoliticaltiesand a history
of
deceptivepractices,attachedExhibit
b.
OnNovember
15,
2006,upon being madeaware of thecharges, shesurrendered herselfto
a
judge
in
the RollingMeadowsCourthouse.
She
was laterreleasedon anl-Bondbecauseshe
hasno
criminal background and theoffense for whichshe wascharged was nonviolent
in
nature.
c.
On
January
10,
2007
,
thechargesagainstthe Defendantweredismissed for lackof evidence.
d.
On January
17,2OO7,
she was indicted
in
2600 CaliforniaAve.,Chicago,lL,
on
the samechargesandherRolling Meadows l-Bondwas transferred.
e.
OnMay
28,2008,
a
new indictmentforthesame chargesuperseded the January 2007case. Thearraignment'sdatewassetforJune
181h,
2008.
f.
Uponrealizingshe wasn't arraignedin her new indictment
on
thecomputer tampering
case,
theDefendant ordered variouscourt records to confirm this.
g.
Thedocket,
the
judge's
half sheetsandnotes, the courtcall sheet, showed
no
arraignment,attachedExhibit
B- 
However whenthe Defendant received thearraignment transcript from
Mrs.
Laurel Laudin, the court reporter,thetranscript showedan anaignment, attachedExhibit
h.
The Defendant as a result, called Mrs. Laurel Laudin.Mrs.
Laudin
told herthat
shewasproperlyarraigned.When Mrs. Melongothreatened tofile
a
complaint, thecourtreporterhung
up.
i.
OnDecember
8th,
2009, Mrs. Melongoreceived a reply
mail
from
her
former lawyer,
Mr.
James

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->