P. 1
Amended Motion To Dismiss Illinois Eavesdropping Case

Amended Motion To Dismiss Illinois Eavesdropping Case

4.0

|Views: 1,831|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 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS CRIMINAL DIVISION

State Of lllinois,

Plaintiff,
v.

No. 10GR0809201 Judge Steven

J.

Goebel

Annabel K. Melongo
Defendant,

Amended Motion To Declare Statute Unconstitutional And To Dismiss
Now comes Annabel K. Melongo, Pro Se, and respectfully asks this Honorable Court to dismiss the

Eavesdropping charges pending against her because the Eavesdropping statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the Defendant and violates substantive Free Speech, Freedom of Press, Petition and Due Process guarantees. As grounds of this motion, the Defendant states:

l.

Jurisdiction Of This Court

a.ThisHonorao,.-rmattersofprotectedFederalrightsandtoenforce
those rights wherever necessary,since "the application of the First Amendment to the facts of a
particular case is not an issue for a jury to resolve, but is a legal question for the court to decide", Pottsv. Cityof Lafayette,121F.3d 1106. Furthermore ,Youngerv. Hanis,401 U.S. 37,45(1971), prescribed that any defendant should first set up and rely upon his defense in a state court before seeking redress in federal court.

b.

On Decembe( 13b,2010, Judge Brosnahan previously denied the Defendanfs motion claiming the lllinois Eavesdropping to be unconstitutional based on People

v.

Bearsley, 115

lll. 2d47(Ul.

'1986). While the motion was properly denied because it failed the burden of proof demonstrating

the statute to be unconstitutional, this time around, the Defendant seeks dismissal claiming the lllinois Eavesdropping Statute unconstitutional on its face and as applied to her because its violates First Amendment and Due Process guarantees of the United States and lllinois
Constitutions.

ll.
a-

The lllinois Eavesdroppinq Act, 720 ILCS 5/14

The lllinois Eavesdropping Statute, 720 ILCS 5114 et seq. ("The Act"), states that:
" A person commits eavesdropping when he:

(1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing

and

recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with Article 1 08A or Article 1088 of the "Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963", approved August 14, 1963, as amended"..

(2) Uses or divulges, except as authorized

by Article 108A or 108B of the "Code of Criminal

Procedure of 1963", approved August 14, 1963, as amended, any information which he knows or reasonably should know was obtained through the use of an eavesdropping device."
b.

The Act defines an eavesdropping device as being "any device capable of being used to hear or

record oral conversation or intercept, retain or transcribe electronic conversations whether such conversations or electronic communication are conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means; provided however, that this definition shall not include devices used for the restoration of the deaf or hard-of-hearing to normal or partial hearing."
c.

The Act, as amended in 1994, adopted a new definition of a conversation as "any oral

communication between 2 or more persons regardless of whether one or more of the parties intended their communication to be of a private nature under circumstances justifying that expectation." This Amendment was specifically adopted to reverse a ruling in Bearsley which an element of crime was "circumstances which entitle the parties to a conversation to believe that the conversation is private and cannot be heard by others who are acting in a lawful manner." Bearsley at 53 (emphasis added).
d.

Pursuant 1o720 ILCS 5/14-3(i), the Act allows civilians to record a conversation without the consent of all parties only when "recording of a conversation made by or at the request of a person, not a law enforcement officer or agent of a law enforcement officer, who is a party to the conversation, under reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation is committing, is about to commit or has committed a criminal offense against the person or a member of his or her immediate household,

and there is reason to believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording."

e. f.

Pursuant to 720 ILCS 5114-4(a), the Act states that a first violation is a class 4 Felony, and a second or subsequent offense a class 3. Pursuant to 720 ILCS 5114-4(b), the eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication between any law enforcement officer, state's attorney, assistant state's attorney, the attorney general, assistant attorney general, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a class 1 felony.

lll. a.

Facts Of The Gase

On October 31, 2006, the Defendant was charged with Computer tampering alleging remotely deleting files, mostly financial, belonging to Save-A-Life Foundation, a now defunct non-for-profit organization with political ties and a history of deceptive practices, attached Exhibit A.

b.

On November 15, 2006, upon being made aware of the charges, she surrendered herself to a

judge in the Rolling Meadows Courthouse. She was later released on an l-Bond because she has
no criminal background and the offense for which she was charged was nonviolent in nature.

c. d. e. f. g.

On January 10, 2007 , the charges against the Defendant were dismissed for lack of evidence.

On January 17,2OO7, she was indicted in 2600 California Ave., Chicago, lL, on the same charges and her Rolling Meadows l-Bond was transferred. On May 28,2008, a new indictment for the same charge superseded the January 2007 case. The arraignment's date was set for June
181h,

2008.

Upon realizing she wasn't arraigned in her new indictment on the computer tampering case, the Defendant ordered various court records to confirm this. The docket, the judge's half sheets and notes, the court call sheet, showed no arraignment, attached Exhibit B- However when the Defendant received the arraignment transcript from Mrs. Laurel Laudin, the court reporter, the transcript showed an anaignment, attached Exhibit C.

h. i.

The Defendant as a result, called Mrs. Laurel Laudin. Mrs. Laudin told herthat she was properly arraigned. When Mrs. Melongo threatened to file a complaint, the court reporter hung up. On December 8th, 2009, Mrs. Melongo received a reply mail from her former lawyer, Mr. James

Flood, wherein he stated that she didn't need to be in court to be arraigned if she was pleading
not guilty, attached Exhibit H.

On December 10, 2009, Mrs. Pamela Taylor, an assistant administrator at the Cook County Court Reporter Office and supposedly Mrs. Laudin's supervisor, called Mrs. Melongo and forbade her to call Mrs. Laudin. lrritated, Mrs. Melongo hung up.
k.

Minutes later, Mrs. Pamela Taylor called back and left a voicemail wherein she reiterated that Mrs. Laudin shouldn't be contacted. She made herself available for any discussion related to the altered court transcript, attached Exhibit D.

t.

Later that day, using the phone number prescribed by Mrs. Taylor in her voicemail, Mrs. Melongo

called her. Unconstrained, Mrs. Taylor discussed the facts surrounding the altered court transcript. The defendant recorded that conversation, attached Exhibit E.
m. Subsequent conversations on the altered transcript continued on December 15, 2009 and

December 16, 2009" The Defendant recorded those conversations as well, attached Exhibit F.
n.

On December 18,2009, using the lnternet links of the recorded conversations on the illinoiscorruption.net website, the Defendant contacted an FBI agent, attached Exhibit G.

o.

On January 8th, 201 0, while Pro Se, the Defendant filed an amended motion to dismiss the

computer tampering case based on perjured statements of the state's witness, Detective William Martin of the Schiller Park Police, and prosecutorial misconduct of the state prosecutors.
p.

On March 3'd, 20'10, the Defendant was scheduled to argue her motion to dismiss. However, the state moved to request a psychological evaluation ("BCX") on her to determine her fitness to stand trial and to represent herself.

q.

On April 13,2010, the Defendant submitted to the BCX and as she was stepping out of the

psychological evaluation session, she was arrested for the new offense of Eavesdropping.
f.

On April 14,2010, her bond was set to $500,000D reduced to $300,000D on May 5, 2010.

On July 26,2010, the Defendant was set to argue her motion to dismiss rewritten by Mr. Albukerk, the Defendant's new lawyer. However, the state prosecutors, Mr. Podlasek and Mrs. Julie Gunnigle, decided to switch election to the Eavesdropping case.
On January 12th,2011 , the Defendant's trial on the Eavesdropping case commenced.

4

u.

On January 13,2011, Mrs. Pamela Taylor, testifying for the state, stated that she willingly

participated in the conversations, attached Exhibit

l-'1

. Mrs. Laudin also testi{ying for the state,

stated that the audiotape of the arraignment's hearing was deleted to preserve her computer's memory space, attached Exhibit l-2. Mr. James Flood, the Defendant's former lawyer, testifying for the state, stated that he wouldn't have arraigned her without her being present, attached Exhibit l-3, contradicting the email in paragraph i. Mr. Albukerk, for no apparent reason, decided
not to show that email to the jurors during the trial. Finally the FBI agent, testifying for the

Defense, acknowledged recelpt of the email in paragraph n but wouldn't comment on any actions undertaken as a result, attached Exhibit l-4.

v.
w.

On January 14th,2011 , Judge Brosnahan, with a jury hung at 7-5, declared the trial a mistrial. The illinoiscorruption.netwebsite, owned by the Defendant's family, chronicled the events in her computer tampering case. Mrs. Melongo provided the main expertise that led to its creation. By the time the website shut down, it averaged 5,000 hits.

x.

The Cook County Court Reporter Office is a public office located at the fifth floor in the Courthouse building where the Defendant's criminal charges are pending. Mrs. Pamela Taylor was in her office during the conversations. She willingly gave Mrs. Melongo her workplace's phone and email as contact channels to discuss about the altered transcript.

lV. A. a.

The Act ls Unconstitutional On lts Face

First Amendment Riqhts Violations

The U.S. Court of Appeals on August 26th,2011 stated that "though not unqualified, a citizen's
right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First

Amendment." Glikv. Cunniffe, No. 10-1764_F.3d_, 2011WL3769092 1'1"tCir. Aug.26, 2O11).

ln GIik, the defendant was accused of filming, on public property, police officers arresting an
individual. That court unambiguously established that the filming of government officials engaged
in their duties in a public place falls under the principles protected under the First Amendment

Right.
b.

Notwithstanding this ruling, lllinois citizens are still prohibited from recording public officials without all parties' consents. ln fact, whereas the Act gives a broad discretion to police officers, through a wide range of exceptions, to record civilians during enforcement stops, civilians on the other hand are limited to record except to prove a crime as stated in 720 ILCS Sl14-3(i). Furthermore, the Act on its face doesn't regulate the discretion of police officers on what to record,
at what point to start or stop the recording and which portions of the recordings to save, destroy,

withhold or disclose. The police officers exclusively control what is heard by the public, creating a speaker-based discrimination which "reflect the Government's preference for the substance of what the favored speakers have to say (or aversion to what the disfavored speakers have to say)."
Turner Broad., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622,658 (1994). lt's a fundamental principle that the

legislature is "constitutionally disqualify from dictating... the speakers who may address a public

issue." First National Bank v. Bellotti,435 U.S. at 784-85.
d.

Finally there's an insufficient nexus between the Act's application and its legislative intent. The Act fails to properly balance its goal of protecting the privacy of lllinois citizens against the First Amendment guarantees of those citizens. lt employs a one-size-fits-all approach to all conversations, putting private conversations at the same level as conversations done in public places and audible to the unassisted ear.

e.

Whenever a statute fails to properly tailor an asserted interest to the means of achieving that which
it intends to protect, the statute is deemed unconstitutional since "a court cannot cavalierly accept

without proof that the means being used achieve the legitimate ends being sought. Other courts have held that such a failure to establish a nexus is grounds for finding the restriction unconstitutional;' Zeller v. The Florida Bar, 909 F.Supp. 1518, 1526 (1995).

B. Due Process
a.

Riqhts Violations

The legislative intent of the Act was that "lllinois Citizens are entitled to be safeguarded from unnecessary governmental surveillance and other unreasonable intrusions into their privacy." Plock v. Board of Education of Freeport Schoot District No. 145,396 lll. App. 3d 960, 966 200s).
12nd

Dist.

b.

Assuming, arguendo, that the act doesn't violate First Amendment guarantees on its face and as applied to the Defendant, the test to determine whether it complies with substantive due process
requirements is the rational basis test, People v. Hamm, 149 lll. 2d 201 , 216, 172 lll. Dec. j 79, sgs N.E 2d 540 (1992) Under that test, a statute will be upheld if it "bears a reasonable relationship to a public interest to be served, and the means adopted are a reasonable method of accomplishing the desired

objective, People v. Adams,144lll.2d381, 390, 163lll. Dec.483, 581 N.E.2d 637 (1991). TheAct can't pass Constitutional muster when subjected to this test because it imposes severe means to address its laudable goal of protecting the privacy of lllinois citizens.
d.

For example, a mother filming a funny conversation with her three-years old toddler and emailing the said conversation to the toddler's grandparents would be charged with two counts of Class 4

felony under the Act for recording and divulging the conversation. Additionally, someone filming
loud and festive conversations during a wedding or a birthday's party and publishing the immortalized festivities on YouTube or Facebook as well as giving copies to anyone interested in preserving a personal copy, would be liable of numerous counts of Class 4 felony under the Act. lf

a law enforcement officer, a state's attorney, an assistant state's attorney, an attorney general, an
assistant attorney general, or a judge happened to be among the guests being filmed, the counts under the felony classification become Class
1.

Though none of the above-mentioned examples impinged upon the privacies of the actors
involved, a filmmaker engaged in the activities become a felon under the Act just for knowing and intending to record and publish. Whenever a statute "contains two mental-state elements: knowledge and intent. ln such circumstances, the lllinois Supreme Court has declined to read a criminal purpose into a statute." People v. Wright,194 lll. 2d al29-30.

f

The lack of a criminal purpose and the over breadth nature of the Act encompass innocent
behaviors which the legislature never intended to punish. " Such innocent but knowing conduct,

which is wholly devoid of criminal or devious intent; should not render a person guilty of a felony. People v. Tolliver, 147 lll.2d 436 at 402, 168 lll. Dec. 127, 589 N.E.2d 527. Because of this, "this
court and courts in other jurisdictions have held that criminal statutes that potentially punish

"

innocent conduct violate due process principles..." People v. Wright,194 lll. 2d 1,62,740 N.E.2d

755,251 lll. Dec. 469 (2000).

g.

Support for the argument in the above paragraph could be found in the following cases: People

v.

Madrigal,241 lll.2d 463,948 N.E.2d 591 (lll. 2O11),350 lll. Dec. 311; People v. Carpenter, 228lll. 2d 250, 267 , 320 lll. Dec. 888, 888 N.E.2d 105 (2008); People v. Wright, 194 lll. 2d 1,740 N.E.2d
755, 251 lll. Dec. 469 (2000); People v. Zaremba, 158 lll. 2d 36, 630
N.

E.2d 797 , 196 lll. Dec. 632

(199a); People v. Hamm 149 lll. 2d2A1, 595 N.E.2d 540,172lll. Dec. 179 (1992); People v. Wick,

107lll. 2d62,481 N.E.2d 676,89 lll. Dec.833 (1985).

h.

Federal Courts have also confirmed the Madrigal-Wick line of reasoning. For instance, The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, stated that "where a criminalstatute prohibits and punishes

seemingly innocent or innocuous conduct that does not in itself furnish grounds to allow the
presumption that defendant knew his actions must be wrongful, conviction without some other

extraneous proof of blameworthiness or culpable mental state is forbidden by the Due Process Clause." Stantey v. Turner,6 F.3d 399, 4O416th Cir. 1993). The United States Supreme Court had
also stricken a lack of culpable mental state in a legislature as unconstitutional. Saying that "criminal statutes must be scrutinized with particular care [citation]; those that make unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct may be held facially invalid even if they

also have legitimate application." City of Houston, Texas v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 , 459, 107 S.Ct.

2502,96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987).

V. a.

The Act ls Unconstitutional As Applied To Defendant

A.

Establishinq The Existence Of A Willinq Speaker

While responding to a Federal complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU")
challenging the constitutionality of the Act, the plaintiff, Anita Alvarez, in her motion to dismiss

('ACLU Motion To Dismiss"), stated that there must exist a willing speaker to implicate a First Amendment Right, attached Exhibit J, p. 7-8.

b,

Mrs. Pamela Taylor willingness to discuss issues surrounding the altered court transcript qualified
her as a willing speaker. ln fact, Mrs. Taylor was in control at every stage of the recorded

8

conversations, initiating the first contact, providing contact information and time availability, and terminating her talks with the Defendant.
While testifuing during the Defendant's trial, Mrs. Taylor never indicated that she was forced to

speak. lf anything, she witnessed entirely to the contrary, namely, that she was a willing
participant, if not the dominant and forceful one during the conversations.

B. First Amendment

Free Speech Riqht Violation

The U.S. Supreme Court determined that once the existence of a willing speaker has been
established, the protection afforded is to the communication, to its source and to its recipient both, arguing that if Mrs. Taylor, the source, had the right to speak, the recipient, Mrs. Melongo, held a reciprocal right to receive her speech, which reception includes recording il, Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748, 756, 96 S. Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed 2d 346 (1976). The right to willingly speak and the right to listen (and to receive) are but flip sides of the same coin, Conant v. Watters,309 F. 3d 629, 643(9th Ct.2OO2).
b.

Anita Alvarez, the state prosecutor, citing Rrghf to Life v. Shepard,507 F,3d 545, 549(7th Cir.

2007) recognized in her ACLU Motion To Dismiss that a defendant "has standing to assert First Amendment right to receive speech only if he can demonstrate a willing speaker", Exhibit J, p.8.
In the same page, in support of the right to receive information, Anita Alvarez further added that

"the right to willingly speak is superior to the right to receive, and the derivative right to receive is
not triggered until after the speaker voluntarily assents to participate in a conversation."

Taken at her own words, Anita Alvarez provides the means to dismiss the indictment in the present case. The unquestionable willingness of Mrs. Taylor to discuss the facts surrounding the altered transcript bestowed a right on Mrs. Melongo to receive that information and to record its protected content if she so wished. Action completely lawful under Lopez v. United Sfafes, 373

U.5.427,83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed. 2d 342, reasoning that "there should be no limitation on a
person insofar as repeating or testifying as to what he heard. By recording the conversation the agent... was simply preserving a more accurate account of what he had heard." This couldn't be more accurate regarding the Defendant given that English is her third language and that nobody

would have given her the benefit of the doubt in a credibility contest against Cook County absent the recordings.

C.

First Amendment Freedom Of Press Riqht Violation

The Freedom of Press is a fundamental personal right not confined to newspapers and
periodicals, Lovellv. Griffin,303 U.S. 444,450 (1938). As such, lhe illinoiscorruption.netwebsite

was press and was an information gathering agent to the public.
b.

Gathering information in a form that can be readily disseminated to others serves a cardinal First

Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs", Mills v. Alabama,384 U.S. 214,218(1966).
The subject matter of the recorded conversations, an altered court transcript, contains factual matter of public interest. The press, in this instance the illinoiscorruption.net website, can't be prevented from reporting what it learned and what the public was entitled to know, Nixon Warner Communications |nc.,435 U.S. 589, 609(1978).
d.
v.

There's also protection derived from the common-law principle that courts are public institutions
that operate openly and judicially imposed limitations on this right are subject to the First

Amendment, 28 U.S.C

S

452. This rationale is also reflected in Seaff/e Times Co- v. Rhinehart,

467 U.S. 20, 33, 104 S.Ct. 2199,81L.Ed. 2d 17 (1984) which established that the public has a
right to access anything that is a "traditionally public source of information...courthouse records could serve as a source of public information." Given that Mrs. Taylor, while seating in a public property, spoke on a matter of public interest at a

volume audible to the unassisted ear, "though not unqualified, a citizen's right to film government
officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment" G/ik v. Cunniffe, No. 10-1767 F.3d,2011 WL 3769092(1"1 Cir. Aug. 26, 2011). Opinion also shared in Smith v. City of

Cumming,212 F.3d 1333, recognizing a First Amendment right to gather information about what
public officials do on public property and specifically a right to record matters of public interest.

L0

D.
a.

First Amendment Petition Riqht Violation

The Act declares the recordings and their dissemination criminal actions. ln doing so, the Act violates the Defendant's right to receive specific evidence or discovery necessary to petition the government for redress of grievances.

b.

The recordings were never undertaken to embarrass, defame or extort Mrs. Taylor or the Cook
County Court Reporter Office. Rather, the Defendant deeply believed that her transcript failed to accurately portray the June 18th, 2008, court hearing proceedings and consequenily the misrepresentation of that hearing was a crime.

c.

That reasonable suspicion was supported by the very records the courts rely on to evaluate court
hearing proceedings. Additionally, Mrs. Melongo explicitly threatened to file a complaint against Mrs. Laudin long before the recordings were made- Consequently, when Mrs. Taylor volunteered to speak on Mrs. Laudin's behalf, the Defendant recorded the conversations to gather evidence of
a crime committed against her. Regardless of the reasons why the Cook County Court Reporter

can't produce evidence justifying the accuracy of the June 18ft, 2008 transcript, the fact remains
that the court reporter, by deleting the audiotape of the arraignment's hearing, failed to produce evidence that the Defendant was incorrect in her suspicion. Using the internet links of the recorded conversations, the Defendant sought redress of grievances by contacting a FBI agent to complaint against what she saw constituted a grave treason on the part of those responsible of safeguarding the authenticity of court records.

E. Due Process Riqht Violation
a.

The Act can't stand scrutiny under the rational basis test because it punishes innocent conduct unrelated to the legislature's purpose. For instance, the Defendant recorded her conversations

with Mrs. Taylor to gather evidence to file a Federal complaint. Other than the knowledge and
intent to record, there were no malicious or cdminal purposes associated with her actions.
b.

lf the purpose of the Act is to safeguard lllinois Citizens from unreasonable intrusions in their privacy, though a laudable goal, the Act however encompasses a wide array of innocent conduct beyond that which the legislature intended to punish- There's no intrusion of privacy in recording

a public offlcial seating in a public building, using a public phone, discussing matters of public

LT

interests and speaking at a volume audible to the unassisted ear. What is wrongful is not recording such an individual, but rather, recording for the purpose of committing a crime against that individual's privacy; which crime in the present case was never committed.

c.

This lllinois Supreme Court has held, in the Madrigal-Wick line of precedents, that a statute fails
the rational basis test and consequently punishes innocent behavior, whenever it does not represent a reasonable mean to its intended purpose. Therefore, as applied to the Defendant, the
lack of a culpable mind in her current felony charges violates Due Process Clauses of the United

States and lllinois Constitutions, attached Exhibit K.

WHEREFORE, Annabel K. Melongo asks this Honorable Court to find the lllinois Eavesdropping Statute unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to her and consequently, to dismiss the indictment against her. Respectfully Submift ed,

Atty.

No.: 99500

Attorney For;Alnabe.l_K_I4gjgngg Address: P.O. Box 4734 City/State/Zip: Chicago. lL 60680

Telephone:

7

08-422-2562

L2

meflcan I funKer-

ltnt Artlcle

rlttp://www.amencantxnker.com/pnntpag€/'/url-nftp://www.arnencantnrnker.com/arch

Exhibit A
Retuui to the Article

tlhibit A

June

9,2010

The Save-A-Life Foundation Story: A Study in the Chicago Way
By tee Car.l Several local and national MSM news outlets promoted the Chicago suburb-based Save-A-Life Foundation(SAln, an enterprise that ran unchallenged from 1993 to November 2006, when A BC News Chicago television investigative reporter Chuck Goudie exposed the organization's founder, Carol Spizzirri, in a series of reports that began with this:

Spizzirri's ol'tcn-toJd acqount of her daughter's death due to inadequate first aid at the scene of an auto accident was the narrative foundation of the SALF. Official records indicate that the story is laced with fiction.
Today, Anale,ll,N{clonge, a black female immigrant from Cameroon, sits in an Illinois jail charged with a variety of complrer,relalql crirnes allegedly committed against her former employer, the now-defunct SALF. The far-left website Dail} Kos is among those who smell something awry regarding Melongo's incarceration.

In order to keep this information from the public the courts have been used to discredit the Whistle-blower in this case, Annabel Melongo, because of many influential people involved with fundraising for the SALF foundation. Little did she know that this small incident will spawn a case that will challenge lllinois'political and legal sysrem.
The size of Melongo's bond -- $500,000 -- seems unusually high until you factor in the Iilinois state and national politicians, state and federal agencies, and law enforcement jurisdictions that, wittingly or unwittingly, enabled SALF to receive millions of dollars of taxpayer money over its life while yielding dubious results. It's the Chicago Way. To date, there's been no definitive accounting for much of the approximately $9 million that passed through SALF.

The MSM Promoted SALF

In 1995, a Chicagtirlribunc arlicle entitled "Mother On A Mission - First Aid Might Have Saved Her Daughter" claimed that
because her own l8-year-old daughter died in a car accident when basic first aid might have saved her

t3

life, Spizzirri's steps

I

I

/qll I

R.?5

P\

,mencan I hlnker- Pnnt Artlcle

nttp://www.amencanthlnKer.com/pnntpage/'/url=http://www.amencanthlnker.com/arch

have ... taken her much farther than her daughter's grave. Now she is angrily chasing polrttcians from Springfield to Washington, and rururing the Save a Life Foundation, which is fighting to pass legislation requiring training in first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation for police, fireflghters, teachers, public safety workers and emergency dispatchers ... The first police officers on the scene balked at administering aid. By the time the paramedics arrived, Christina had bled to death on the highway. The Tribune never checked Spizzirri's assertions against the facts of what happened the day her daughter died. CNN helped authenticate Spizzirri's account, as did Chicago's V{G i\i tcrle r i$on.

In October 2009, even after SALF had been discredited and had d-:b4:ldg-d on July 1 of that year, the Chicagg l'ribunq attributed its problems to the economy and SALF critics -- several of whom Spizzirri unsuccessfully stred. Al1 the SAI.F board members received requests to prcvide depositions in the lawsuit. Norre did The Tribune reported that [Spizzirri'sl supporters in the 1990s included Gov. Jim Edgar, then-U.S. Rep Dick Durbin and television star David Hasselhoff of "Baywatch" fame. She appeared on "Inside Edition" and helped push through a state law in 1994 that requires police and firefighters be trained to provide first aid. But Spizzirri,63, has quietly closed the foundation's headquarters in Schiller Park. The organization, which once had I 3 national branches and planned to go international, no longer receives public funding and is "in hibernation" until the economy improves, she said. The subject of an unflattering television report in 2}Cf,Spizzirir was embroiled for two years in a defamation lawsuit she filed in state court against several critics, who alleged she couldn't prove that her organization had trained as many children as she said and that it wasted taxpayers' money. Spizzirri, who eventually dropped her suit, said it took its toll and helped prompt her recent decision to suspend operations.
Here,s a question: Did the Tribune spin the SALF story to give cover to prominent years?

Illinois politicians complicit in the SALF scam over the

SALF Ilooked Some Big Political Fish
When he was CEO of the Chicago Public Schools, current U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was a prominent supporter of SALF From 2004 to 2006, he authorized expenditures of $50,000 to bring SALF volunteers into Chicago schools to teach first aid. The McDonald's Corporation joined the effort, and the number jumped to S 18.i.000. This cartoon chalaclerization of Dulcan promoted SALF.

Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-9th Dist.) sponsored a Clongressi.ppal B-udgsltarqlark for SALF for fiscal year 2C{]/9,long after
the organization had been thoroughly discredited.

SALF touted State Senator Barack Obama's original mentor in the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones, as a spokesperson, but when Chuck Goudie exposed Spizzirri, Jones disavowed any association with SALF, as you'll see in this video.

lLl
1

1/9/1 1 8:25 Plr

,mencan I htnker- r?rnt Artlcle

http://www.amencanttunker.com/pnntpage/?url=hitp://www.amencantnlnker.com/arcn

Former Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman added a bipartisan element by sponsoring U.S. Senate Bill 2533 that, if funded, could have 1'unneled millpal more into the SALF.

Earlier this year [2006], the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted the Community Response Systems Initiative (CRSI) Resolution, named in honor of Christina Spizzirt'r, committing their support to SALF as a foundation for emergency preparing [sicl their communities. Thereafter U.S. Senator Norm Coleman (MN), sponsored the "CRSI ACT" to assist in this initiative.

This is a short list of the political connections that Spizzirri made and used to advance her organization. Those connections gained access to multiple money rivers flowing through state and federal agencies.

SALF Thpped into State & Federal TbxpayerFunding ln2002 alone, SALF received $600"000 from the lllinois Department of Public Health (DPH), with a grand total over the years of $2.700.000 in grants from the srate agency. h2A02, SALF received $200,000 fiom the lllinois Department of Commerce & Community

Affairs. And, also that year, it got $31,819 from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the Center for Dsease Control (CDC).

ln2OO2, SALF received $25,ff)0 from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan. Madigan, along with Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, are pursuing prosecution of Anabell Melongo.

A 2006 list of the SALF's Board of Drectors identified Douglas R. Browne as the organization's treasurer. Over the years, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) granted $2.633.000 to SALF. Browne worked for the CDC as Chairman of the National Center for InjurrBrowne.
Prevention and Control (NCIPC). SALF minutes from a January 2007 Board meeting state that the Board approved a $40,000 salary for

SALF claimed to operate a multi-state National Guard first aid tmining program, and its 2007-2008 Aruual Report listed involvementin2g states. But in a letlerfrom the Office of the Chief Counsel, National Guard Bureau dated May 6,2009,coming in response to a request for information pursuant to the Freedom af Information Act and conceming SALFs involvement with the National Guard, the Guard spokesperson wrote that "[a] search for responsive documents by knowledgeable staff ... failed to locate any records that would be responsive to your request."
Vince Davis, then SALF's National Director of Military Affairs, is the tall man who ushered Chuck Goudie out of Spizzirri's office in the video clip of his interview with Spizzirri. Davis later founded Vinrnar Consulting Serviccs. The company website mentions Davis, involvement with SALF without naming the organization. It simply states that he "spent two years as National Director of Operations and Military Affairs for a non-profit advocacy organization specializing in CPRJFirst aid education for children."

\Mhat's Next for Spizzirri? As of May 20@, Spizzirri was lobbl'ing the Illinois State Legislature as an activist against online stalking, claiming that SALF was a victim of tortious inter"ference. So is there another nonprofit foundation there in the making? Meanwhile, millions of dollars granted to the Save-A-Life Foundation remain unaccounted for, and no one seems to be interested in tracking the money against what the organization delivered over the years...as Anabell Melongo sits in jail. It's a curious thing, isn't it? The courts, law enforcement jurisdictions, local Chicago MSM outlets,leading politicians -- all in alignment. That's the Chicago Way.
Page

09,20ll

Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.corn/archived-articles/.J2010106/the_savealife_foundatbn storyJrtml at November
- 08:23:04 PM CST

tt
II

/9/1

I

R:25

P\

IN THE CIRCUIT VS ANNABEL K
MELONGO

COURT OF COOK COUNTY,

ILLTNOIS

Page 001
Exhibit B

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLTNO]S
NL]MBER O8CR1O5O2O1

Exhibit

ExhibtiB

CERTIFIED STATEMENT OF CONVICTTON / DISPOSITTON

l, DOROTHY BROWN, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, fllinois, and keeper of the records and seal- thereof do hereby certify that t.he elect.ronic records of the Circuit Court of Cook County show that:
The States Attorney of Cook County filed with the Clerk of the Ci-rcult Court.

an

INDICTMENT/INFORMATION

Charging the above named defendant wlth:

F4 T]\TAUTHD ACCESS/DESTROY DATA F4 UNAUTHD ACCESS/DESTROY DATA UNAUTHD ACCESS/DESTROY DATA F4 The following disposition (s) was/were rendered before the Honorable Judge (s)
720-5/L6D-3 (a) (3 720-5/L6D-3 (a) (3 720-5/L6D-3 (a) (3

:

06/03/08 rND/rNFO-CLK OFFTCE-PRES JUDGE 06/78/08 CASE ASSTGNED
DEFENDANT NOT rN COURT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD o6/Ls/0s DEFENDANT oN BOND SCHREIER, JAMES M. o6/L8/08 CONTTNUANCE By AGREEMENT SCHRE]ER, JAIVIES M. j7/L6/OB DEFENDANT ON BOND SCHRE]ER, ,JAMES M. O7/L6/08 CONTINUANCE BY AGREEMENT SCHREIER, .JAMES M. 08/73/08 DEFENDANT ON BOND SCHREIER, JAMES M. 08/L3/08 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY ATTY. FLOOD WTTHDRAW GRNTED. SCHREIER, JAMES M. 0B/r3/08 MOTTON DEFT - CONTTNUANCE - MD SCHREIER, JAMES M. 08/25108 DEFENDANT ON BOND SCHREIER, ,fAMES M. 08/25/08 MOTTON DEFT - CONTTNUANCE - MD DEFT. COMES IN LATE (10:45 A-M.) SCHREIER, JAMES M. oe/22/o8 DEFENDANT oN BOND SCHREIER, JAMES M.

a6/L8/08

BIEBEL, PAUL JR.

06/LB/08 L'70L 06/18/08 LlLe
00/00/00
00/00/00
07/L6/OB

00/00/00
O8/I3/OB

00/00/00

08/25/08 00/00/00 09/22/08
00/00/00

IN THE CIRCUIT VS ANNABEL K
MELONGO

COURT OF COOK COUNTY,

ILLINOfS

Page 002

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
NTIMBER OBCR1O5O2O1

CERTIFTED STATEMENT OF CONVICTION

/

DISPOSITION

I, DOROTHY BROWN, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, f1linois, and keeper of t.he records and seal thereof do hereby certify that the electronic records of the Circuit Court of Cook Count.y show that:
The States Attorney of Cook County filed

0e/22los

09/22/08 rr/L0/08

MOTTON TO WTTHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OO/OO/OO WALSH NEERA LALL oL/2r/09 SPECTAL oRDER oo/oo/oo DEFENSE TENDERS ALL STATE D]SCOVERY TO STATE WALSH NEERA LALL 0L/2r/0e SPECTAL ORDER 00/00/00 DEFENSE TENDERS FTLES TO DEFENSE / TON ATTY OR PRO SE WALSH NEERA LALL 0r/2L/09 MorroN DEFT - CONTTNUANCE - MD 02/05/09 WALSH NEERA LALL 02/05/0e DEFENDANT oN BoND 0o/00/oo FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD 02/05/09 SPECTAL ORDER 00/00/00 DEFT DESIRE TO REPRESENT HERSE],F COURT ADMONISHED HER PURSUANT TO FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD 02/05/09 SPECTAL ORDER OO/00/00 SUPREME COURT RULE FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD 02/0s/09 CONTTNUANCE By AGREEMENT 03/05/09 FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD 03/05/09 DEFENDANT Nor rN couRT 00/00/00 HOWLETT, MICHAEL J, JR. o3/0s/o9 BOND FORFETTURE 8001 00/00/00 HOWLETT, MICHAEL J, JR.

0L/27/09

DEFENDANT oN BOND JOYCE TIMOTHY JOSEPH LL/LO/OB CONTINUANCE BY AGREEMENT JOYCE TIMOTHY JOSEPH r2/L7/0s DEFENDANT oN BOND SCHREIER, JAMES M. L2/Li/og CoNTTNUANCE By AGREEMENT SCHREIER, JAMES M. 01/2r/09 DEFENDANT ON BOND WALSH NEERA LALL

MOTTON DEFT - CONTTNUANCE SCHRE]ER, JAMES M.

appnARANCE FrLED SCHRE]ER, JAMES M.

an

INDICTMENT/INFORMATfON

oo/oo/oo

- MD

LL/rc/o8
oo/oo/oo L2/L7/08 oo/oo/ao oL/2L/09
OO/OO/OO

IN THE CIRCUIT VS ANNABEL K
MELONGO

COURT OF COOK COUNTY,

ILLINOIS

Page 003

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
NUMBER O8CRIO5O2O1

CERTIF]ED STATEMENT OF CONVICTION

/

NTSPOS]TION

I, DOROTHY BROWN, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, and keeper of the records and seal Lhereof do hereby certify that the el-ectronic records of the Circuit Court of Cook Count.y show that:
The States Attorney of Cook County fil-ed an o3/o5/09 No BArL HOWLETT, MICHAEL J, JR. 03/05/09 coNT FOR JUDMT ON FORFETTURE HOWLETT, MICHAEL J, JR. 03/05/09 WARR ORD, WARR TSSUED HOWLETT, MTCHAEL J, ,JR. n/aslos wanRANT SENT To pol,rcE AGENCY 03/06/09 WARR AUDTTED - ELEC DOCK 03/06/09 WARR AUDITED _ COURT FILE 03/06/09 SPECTAL ORDER
DEFENDANT oN BOND FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD o3/oe/o9 WARRANT QUASHED FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD o3/oe/09 BOND FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD o3/os/09 CONTTNUANCE By ORDER OF COURT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD 03/09/09 RECALL/EXEC SENT TO POLTCE AGY o3/LO/Oe DEFENDANT ON BOND FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD j3/LO/O9 CONTTNUANCE BY AGREEMENT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD o3/3L/09 DEFENDANT ON BOND FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD O3/3L/A9 CONTINUANCE BY AGREEMENT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD o4/L4/O9 DEFENDANT ON BOND FLOOD I,AWRENCE EDWARD 04/L4lOg rUOrrON FOR DTSCOVERY DEFENSE MOT]ON FOR ADDTTIONAL DISCOVERY FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD o4/r4/09 CONTTNUANCE BY AGREEMENT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD 05/os/09 DEFENDANT ON BOND FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD QUASH AND RECALL 03 / 06 / 09 HEARTNG DATE

INDICTMENT/INFORMATfON

oo/oo/oo
00/00/00

04/06/09
00/00/00 oo/oo/00 00/00/00 00/00/00
oA/oo/oo
O3/L0/09
O0/00/OO
03

1,7L9

n/ae/oe

ASSTGNED

WARRANT

/ 0e /

09 r'lLe

ro srAND

00/00/00 03/37/09
00/00/00

O4/I4/09 00/00/00

F
0s/05/A9 00/00/00

2

IN THE CIRCUIT VS ANNABEL K
MELONGO

COURT OF COOK COUNTY,

ILLINOIS

page

004

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ]LLINOIS
NUMBER O8CR1O5O2O1

CERTIFIED STATEMENT OF CONVICT]ON

/

DISPOSITION

I, DOROTHY BROWN, Clerk of the Circuit. Court of Cook County, Illinois, and keeper of the records and seal thereof do hereby certify that the electronic records of the Circuit Court of Cook County show t.hat.:
The StaLes Attorney of Cook Count.y fj-Ied an INDICTMENT/INFORMATION 05/05/09 CONTTNUANCE By AGREEMENT o6/rt/09 0G/L7/0e
FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD DEFENDANT oN BOND FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD

0o/oo/oo

FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD 06/L7/09 CONTTNUANCE By AGREEMENT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD 07/27/09 DEFENDANT ON BOND FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD oi/27/09 CONTTNUANCE By AGREEMENT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD

06/17/09 MorroN To DrsMrss TNDTCTMENT

o0/oo/oo F
07/21/09 00/00/00 09/04/09 oo/00/00

2

09104lor onrnNDANT oN BOND 09/04/os lnpnNDANT Nor rN 10:40 A]VI CASE CALLED
FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD

rc/oi/og

FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD CONTTNUANCE By AGREEMENT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD rc/06/09 DEFENDANT oN BOND FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD LO/06/09 MOTTON TO DTSMTSS TNDTCTMENT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD L0/a6/09 CONTTNUANCE By ORDER oF couRT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD L0/07/09 MOTTON TO SUBSTTTUTE JUDGE KAZMIERSKI, JOSEPH G. JR. rc/07/09 DEFENDANT oN BOND KAZMIERSKI , JOSEPH G. .fR.

couRT DEFT AGAIN WARNED ABOUT BEING I,ATE

09/04/09

r0/06/09
oo/00/oo
00/00/OO D
2

10/07/a9

L0/01/09 1729
oo/oo/00

2

rc/07/09 TRANSFERRED

KAZMIERSKI, JOSEPH G. JR.

MorroN To suBsTrrurE

JUDGE

00/00/00
704

D
[/t9
1700 1700

2

L0/07/09 NorrcE oF MorroN/FrLrNG
SUBSTITUTE ,JUDGE LO/L3/Oe CASE ADVANCED

TRANSFER CASE BACK TO JUDGE FLOOD ROOM KAZMIERSKI, JOSEPH G. JR.

ro/w/ag

INSTANTER.

L0/L6/09 LO/r6/09

IN THE CIRCUIT VS ANNABEL K
MELONGO

COURT OF COOK COUNTY,

ILLINOfS

Page 005

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILL]NOIS
NUMBER OBCR1O5O2O1

CERTIFIED STATEMENT OF CONVICTION / D]SPOSITTON

T, DOROTHY BROWN, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill-inois, and keeper of the records and seal thereof do hereby certify that the electronic records of the Circuit Court of Cook County show that:
The States Attorney of Cook County filed Lj/L3log r\4orroN To suBsTrrurE ,JtrDGE

an

INDICTMENT/INFORMATION

Lo/r3/og r0/L4l09
Lo/r4/09

CONTTNUANCE By AGREEMENT BIEBEL, PAUL JR. LO/r6/0e oFF CALL BIEBEL, PAUL JR. LO/28/09 DEFENDANT ON BOND

HnanrNG DATE ASSTGNED MoTroN To suBsTrrurE JUDGE ALREADY RULED UPON BY JDG.KAZMIERSKT B]EBEL, PAUL JR.

!0/L4/09
ro/2s/09
oo/oo/oo
00/00/00

00/00/00

F 1700 00/00/00 D

2

2

LTLe

FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD r0/28/09 CONTTNUANCE By AGREEMENT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD rr/r2log DBFENDANT oN BOND FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD II/1.2/09 CONTINUANCE BY AGREEMENT FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD 12/08/09 DEFENDANT ON BOND FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD

T0/28/09 MorroN To DrsMrss TNDTCTMENT

FLOOD LAWRENCE EDWARD

00/00/00 F rr/L2/09
oo/00/oo L2/08/09
OO/00/OO

2

L2/oB/09 TRANSFERRED

DEFENDANT oN BOND BROSNAHAN, MARY MARGARET \2/LO/09 CONTINUANCE BY AGREEMENT BROSNAHAN, MARY MARGARET

/ 09 TRANSFERRED FLEMING, JOHN J. 12/09/09 NOTTCE OF MOTTON/FILrNG SUBSTITUTE JUDGE t2 / r0 / 09 CASE ASSTGNED BIEBEL, PAUL JR.
L2

BIEBEL, PAUL JR. L2/09/Oe DEFENDANT ON BOND FLEMING, JOHN J.
/
09

L2/09/09

FI.,OOD LAWRENCE EDWARD

r2/09/0e r10L L2/09/0e
00/00/00
L2

CASE

ASSTGNED

L705

/ ro / / r0 /

09 09

L'7

0r

r2/r6/Oe
12

L'7Or
17 0'7

L2/L0/09

00/00/oa OL/I2/LO

J/

2z

Z3

f?L

Exhibit C

ExBiuil c

2t

'7G

77

2E

77

Hello. Ms. Melongo this Pam Taylor from the cour1 repofier otTice, the person that you hanged up frogr- So I rvill say tliis: You lvill have to present your papers stating that you lveren't there and lve have the transcript stating that you rvere there. You have to take that up before the judge, You have what you have, lve have what'"ve have, But, do not contact the coud reporter again, in fact, do not contact anyolle tiom the couft reporter office. The only person you have to speak to regarding June i Bd of 08 is myself. My name is Pam Taylorand I can be reached at773-869-6065. It's approximately I0 min. after 12. I *,ill be at this number until approximately 4 o'ciock today. I u'ill be offa couple days and I will be back on the 15d' of December. I am the only one you are to speak about this but quite frankll', there's nothing to go e lse to say. I told you u'hat our office has and you told me what you have. And now it needs judge. So please, do not contact Ms. Laudin, do not talk to any of my clerical staff about this before a parricular date. And again,I can be reached at773-869-6065. Before 4 O'clock today or December l5d'.
Bye.

Exhibit D

€xRibit D

]o

s.t
Receptionist: What do you rvant?

Dg(l""'h./
-

10, )oaq

Conversation Pamela

Annabel

Annabel: Uh, may I talk to Pamela Teller? tell her this is Annabel.
Receptionist: Uh, you rvant Ms. Telier?

Annabel: yes.
Receptionist: Ok, just a moment, please. Pamela: Pam Teller, may

Exhibit E I help you?

exhiu+ e

rve

Annabel: Hey Pam this is Annabel and I'm so sorry for being like emotional the first time you call. Can just do it this time in a civilized way? You tell me the version of your story and then..-

you say.-..

Pamela: I think I came across my computer Ms. Laudien brought it to my attention and rvhat happened is that, she told rne that, uh rvhen you request transcript from her from that day you rvere coirfused but'

Annabel: Pam, Pam...
Pamela: ... and evidently she had you speaking and when I looked on the clerk computer, I did'iee where they say that, uh you were not present but that was in the first coufiroom..

Annabel: Pam, Pam... that's rvhy I don't want... if you start again that rvay, I hang up. So I came to talk like civilized persons but if you cut my words, I srvear to you I'm going to hang up and please don't call me anymore.
Pamela: Uh?

Annabel: So, First I rvant to knor.v what is your relationship to Laudien, are you her manager or supervisor or u,hat?
Pamela: Yes, I am. I'm assistant adrlinr'strator.

Annabel: Ok, So tell me norv r.vhy.... what you tried to tell me rvhen you called before; because I hanged up and I'm sory for tirat. Tell me now rvhat happened?
Pamela: What happened, according to the clerk computer and according to Ms. Laudien's notes, the case O8CR10502 rvas uh, on the arraignment call. That's a call that's at 9 O'clock in the morning. It's a massive court...ayery..puch courtroom and they call cases like every second; and if you don't ansrver it immediatell,, the€SdFruill say, you're not present. But rvhat they do state in open court is where the case has been transferred to. The case.-. your case was called and I guess you didn't anslver so the clerk of that court room reassigned the call saying defendant not present. But the case was transferred to Judge Schreier in that same building on that same date. Now the transcript that you got is from the court reporter that u,as in Judge Schreier's courtroom.

3t

Annabel: Ok, norv can I tell you my version of the story, now? Pamela: Sure. Annabel: Ok, in the clerk file that I have, there are nvo cases like you say. One before Paul Biebel and the only thing it says is case assigned Paul Biebel and then the case is sent to Judge Schrei...To Judge.
Pamela: Schreier-

Annabel: No, it's not Judge Schreier. It's Judge Flood.
Pamela: Flood, right.

Annabel: Ok.
Pamela: Ok, uh... Annabel: and--.
Pamela: and that's in the sarne courtroom

Annabel: uh, Pam? Please....
Pamela: Oh, ok. I'm sony, go ahead.

Annabel: and then in front of Judge Flood, they say tDefendant Not In Coufl'. 'Defendant Not In Court' is not in front of Paul Biebel, it's in front of, uh Judge Flood. defendant...: Pamela: Correct. Annabel: It's in front of Judge Flood. 'Defendant Not In Court'.
Pamela: Correct.

Annabel: and the second, the other thing I have, that day I had ajob, uh, interview at l0 am and I can shorv you the documents. I also have an email that I senl from my house, that day June 18d at 1l .55 am and I call, uh, AT&T and I actually asked them, is it a rvay that you see an email sent from my cellphone June l8'r' at 11.55, they say no and they also say, there's actually been quite a time since I even sent an email from my cellplione. So the only case that, that email rvas sent, is if I was at my house; and there's no way since Laudien's transcript say I was... the, the arraignment took place around 17 am, there's no 1l,ay I could have been in Califomia at I I am and sent that email from my house at I 1.55. I live in Des Plaines and it takes me lw'o hours to.get to my house from the courthouse because I take public transportation. So, there's kind of inconsistency- The clerk file, the docket, my, uh, uh, my papers and all the, the things I have prove that I rvas not in court that day. The only thing that is inconsistent is the transcript, And in my former file, in my former case, the 07CR..", the one that this case superseded, all the three files are consistent. The docket, the clerk and the transcript. They all say, an arraignment took place that day. Btrt fbr the O8CR I 0502, the docket doesn't mention an arraignment, the clerk file doesn't mention an arraignment, I have documents to prove that I rvas uh, not in the court that date, the only thing that is inconsistent is the transcript. So, please just tell me?

3z

Pamela: Just tell you rvhat?

Annabel: Tell rne why is it, the only thing that's inconsistent is the transcript?
Pamela: Well, I'm, I'm listening to exactly what you're saying, and again, my suggestion is that, uh, if you have , uh, problems with the transcript, then you need to motion your case up before the judge and... (cough),..show him all the documentation that you have, and he will make that decision; but I have to stay by my court reporter rvho, uh, number one has this transcript and number trvo notes it's arraigned because you were arcaigned that day. No defendant is arraigned and there's not present. You have to be present to be arraigned.

Annabel: Ok, talk, talking about the arraignment,I also call... I also email the lawyer and I have that email. You knorv rvhat my larvyer said? He said, I didn't need to be in court to be arraigned. I have that email and I can shorv it to you if you rvant to.
Pamela: Oh, you need to show that to the judge, because, I don't think at law, they rvouldn't have, have to have stated... that's not the larv in Illinois. Show the judge that email. I'm sure he rvould be very angry, you knorv, want to see a lawyer saying that you don't need to be present to be arraigned.

Annabel: What, rvhat judge do i have to show the email? Because I actually changed the judge, uh it's because I'm not under iudge Flood anymore.
Pamela: What Judge are you rvith?

Annabel: Uh, Bros...Brosnahan. Mary M. Brosnahan.
Pamela: Brosnahan?

Annabel: Hmm.
Pamela: Ok, well you know rvhat. In the date, on top of that, whatever in your file, all of those papers and in everything be there, she will still be able to make uh, uh, an intelligent decision about that.

Annabel: Uh, I also have a question. Is it? You don't have audio versions of those transcripts?
Pamela: I don't have wliat? Version? Annabel: Audio. The audio. So that you can listen to it, what rvas actually said in court. Pamela: Oh no, rr,e don't keep that. That's, that's...uh, that's, that's the personal property of the court repofter. That's not, uh, uh, that our product. It's almost like if you rvere to use, uh, a pen or pencil. Uh, it that's, it's simply to say no...(inaudible)...But sometimes r.ve do court sheets, that's our product. Nothing that we have, you knorv, give to people. That's our product-

Annabel: So you have the audio version but you can't...
Pamela: Oh, oh, I have not. Some court reporters do and some court repofters don't.

3t

Annabel:And do you know if she has that file?
Pamela: No, no, I'm not sure.

Annabel: Uh?
Pamela: I'm not sure. I would have uh, .... (cough)...excuse rne I'm getting cold. There's like 50 reporters here and I can't tell you, who makes what.

Annabel: But I think....
Pamela: I mean, I can ask her but.,. uh, uh, rvere there or not if you're in the audio.

if

she does, then that would prove definitely rvhether you

Annabel: Olg and that's why I say, is it a rvay, because if you call to talk about this case, at least you have to have all the de.-. details of the case. So I rvant to know, do you knorv if there's an audio version of that transcript available?
Pamela: Oh, there's uo such thing. An audio version transcript. No. there's no such thing. You were just wondering if there rvere some sort of audio. That was taken..Annabel: Yes.
Pamela: Uh...uh at the time. I n'ould like to ask. But let me tell you this, uh, let me ask you this, I'm sorry. I said that wrong. What if there's uh, before I ask her if she does have it and you're on there, then

what?

Annabel: Then...then everything is fine. But I want to have the audio version.
Pamela: But that's what you could not have Lhe audiu vcrsiul. Like what I've saicl I think that i,vhat you need to do... the thing to do you don't hang over uh..-.uh...uh...the file rvhat you do is that you have to motion it before the court and the... everything is presented before the court. That's hor.v it has to be done. Uh-.. the court....the only thing she can give to you is r.vhat you have already, is the transcript...

Annabel: so.,..
Pamela: But anyhing else, she doesn't have to hand over to you but as I said, I think that this will best be before judge Brosnahan. Wrere you can present to judge Brosnahan where, r.vhat you have and then the court repofter in tum can present what she has and then judge Brosnahan will make that decision.

Annabel: Ok. Uh....uh Pam, please help me here, you knorv I'm not an American so I really don't know horv those things go. Can I subpoena that inforrnation from the court reporter office?
Pamela: What you can uh....uh.. what you can do is you can go back to the clerk's office and they can motion and they'll t1-,o1a, you papers to fill out to motion up the caseAnnabel: To motion rvhat case? I,

l, I don't want to motion

a case....

Pamela: Judge Brosnahan so that you can let her knorv that uh, you have this transcript that says you

31

tvere there and it isn't and that's the proof you have and uh...uh... and that the transcript is rvrong; attd she then, she in turn rvould probably ask the court reporter lvhat other things do you have besides... because reporter office on the court....

Annabel: So, I,1....
Pamela: Another thing you have saying that this woman was there and she'll make the decision lrom
there-

Annabel: You know, what should I have to go to the judge? I think this something... a meeting I've attended, don't you think I have any right to that infbrmation if the information that was given to me is kind of questionable? Do you think I have the right....
Pamela: No, the reason rvhy I can't give this to you is because this is rvhat I'm saying...you are the defendant, she is the court reporter and the relationship that you have , or even if you were a...a lalvyer, The only relationship you have rvith the court reporter is to order a transcript and you have already done that but because you feel that the transcript is not correct, then you have to present that to ajudge. That's holv that r.vorks. There's no uh...uh...uh-...

Annabel: No subpoena?
Pamela: No court reporter giving you her notes, showing you her notes or showing you her audio or you... or the court reporter looking at your papers. It doesn't r'vork that lvay- It has to go before an independent arbitrator r,vho is the judge.

Annabel: Uh.:. another question? Like I.--first before I go to the judge, I first need all the evidence so I would need to know did somebody, gave us.-- because what I want to subpoena, I want to subpoena the audio version if it exists and I also want to subpoena the transcript itself in its original form and give it to another court reporter to translate it. Can I do that?
Pamela: You can subpoena anyone you want. But again rvhen you subpoena people you still have to subpoena them before the court and you have to have a court date or date that subpoena and rvhich is why I say you have to motion the case up before the court. You, you got the clerk file office and say I want to motion my case up to go before judge Brosnahan and I guess you'll pick a date or something but I really don't knorv that works in the clerk office. Man there willput your case on judge Brosnahan call for that day. You then in turn, if you want to, you can subpoena anyone you want and to have them come to court on that particular day but you, but again, I'm, I'm...you know... we're just the court reporter office, rve're going through transcripts. That's it.

Annabel: So you can only bring the transcript to court even if subpoenaed?
Pamela:

If you subpoena her to court to bring

the transcript she rvill do that.

Annabel: But she can not bring the audio, she can not bring the originals?
Pamela: She has to bring the original transcripts that uh....uh because you have the transcripts.... Annabel: No. I'm not talking about the transcripts....

3t

Pamela: It's already right there....

Annabel: I'm not talking about the transcripts I already have. I'm talking about the transcript'.' you knorv rvhen she... they're writing on some kind of a ...a roll paper and I want to have that paper and give it to an independent court reporter that is not even a cook county court repofter. And see---.
Pamela: But first of all, rve're not allorved to uh....uh I can't have someone uh...if it's a court reporter r.vho is not a cook county court repoder take her notes into a transcript. That's just...that's not done. We don't uh..,uh let her notes stay here in cook county, If you lvant an independent person to uh--.look at her notes then, again like I said uh...uh....Ms. Melongo this thing has to go before a judge and the judge has to decide rdrether this is the rvay it has to go. The judge has to make those decisions. That's why I said you need to motion your case up before the judge and let them know rvhat is going on and then the judge probably wili guide you because it sounds like you're Pro Se as to what to do.

Annabel: No is no that... but I already knorv r.vhat to do but the only thing i r,vonder is u'hy is it the things I want can't be subpoenaed? That's the thing I wonder about-..Pamela: I'm sorry can you repeat that?

Annabel: I say the t[ings... the only thing 1....I all...I alreacly know u4rat to do. I don't need to you to give me some iegal advice .
Parnela: Ok.

Annabel: What I need..- r.vhat I woncler is, about that, the things I rvant I can ttot subpoena thern? Because... I want the original auclio file, the original roller that the court reporfer is using but you told
me.,.. Pamela: You r.vant the originals-.,cause you're breaking up-.. you say you want to originals what conrt

reporter?

Annabel: I say I want the origin...you know rvhen they are in the court they some kind of paper and they put it in the machine and then they type on that paper?
Pamela: Ok. Again maybe between the language barrier and uh-.. and maybe misunderstanding... let me...let's me start from the beginning-

Annabel:Ok.
Pamela: Thi-s is the court reporter office and the only thing, the only obligation rve have as courl reporters is if you order a transcript from us, rve're obligated to transcribe that transcript. We have alieady completed our obligations. There's nothing else we're obligated to do. The only thing rve rvill have to be obligated to do is if rve got a cour1 order and a judge... a court order stating that lve have to do X, Y and Z or *,hatever but...the transaction between this office and you has been completed and there's nothing else rvithout a court order that we can or will do.

Annabel: So I say ( inaudible ) .... I say the subpoena is a coutt order, right?
Pamela: I'm

sory

saY that again?

3e

Annabel: A subpoena is a coutt order, right? Parnela: I can under... I probably didn't understand that. I hear plus...(inaudible)... and right but I didn't,.. Annabel: I say a subpoenal, when you subpoena someone..: is...a court'... Pamela: You can subpoena anyone you want to and you can... you can do whatever that you can do... but you know-.. but like I said our office has done rvhat we're supposed..." we're obligated to do and if you want to subpoena people to coutI, you have that right to do that.

Annabel: Ok, Pam, uh, let's go over this...uh....if there's any agteement because I don't rvant to harm Laudien because tampering with records is kind of a felony and the oniy thing I want is kind of consistency of my records- So if there's an agreement.-..
Pamela: And you know what Ms. Melongo... I totally understand... you want a consistency of your records.-. you do not think you have a proper transcript. I totally understand that. I really do, I'm just saying that there's nothing that this office can do because lve feel that we have given you the proper transcript, you leel that you don't have the proper transcript and I'm saying that in order to rectify the situation the only thing left to do is to bring it belore a judge. That's the only thing that's left to do. There's nothing eise that this office can do or give you, in... lve have giving your we have... done our obligations. We have done the transcript to the best of our abiiities and you're saying that it's u'rong. It has 1o... the best decision that has to be made before a judge. There's really no other contact that you...uh...me have to have u,ith the coufi repofter- If you feel she made the \ /rong thing, have to bring it

before thejudge.

Annabel: So can you explain the inconsistency then, why is the former case--..
Pamela: I can't explain, I really canit, I see, i fully...( inaudible )...from my end you're not satisfied with my explanation now, there's not enough I can say that showing that you rvere not even near 26'r California- We have a transcript that says you are, r,vere ltere, in fact I believe that you $/ere even speaking so there's nothing that I can explain to you that's going to convince you of that. So that's rvhy it has to go to a third person rvho is the judge. That's pretty much it.

Annabel: Ok and l.-. I also have a question, rvhy is it Laudien didn't call me herself to explain all this?
Pamela: Why?'cause you were so upset.

Annabel: Why is it, the court reporter Laudien, didn't call me...
Pamela: You knou,what? I have no idea. You situation was presented to me day. I've been off fortr.vo weeks. Unfortunately, it's taken the whole time...(inaudible)...This particular situation lvas presented to me today and that's rvhy I try to rectifly...(inaudible)

Annabel: Horv many people call you about this case? Hallo?....
rvhy...

Pamela: I'm sorry Ms. Melongo. You knorv, I don't knorv. Tiiat's why it rvas presented to me and that'

37

Annabel: How, horv...
Pamela, You kno, I don't know and that's rvhy it was presented to me and that's rvhy I prelty much took over and I understand what you say. You have sfuff saying you weren't there. I understand that Ms. Laudien say she has a transcript and a record that states that you were and one, is the only way this is going to be resolved is before a judge- So, you uh...know hopefully again, the other transcripts tirat you have ordered be rnuch smoother.,. but if you're positive....uh positive about the sifuation, if you feel strong abut it then I suggest you motion the case up before the judge and have them make a decision.

Annabel: Uh, transcript?

I

say horv many persons besides of me contacted you about this case, this particular

Pamela: Oh, no one has contacted me but Ms. Laudien about this case.

Annabel: So anybody ever paid Ms- Laudien to change the transcript?
Pamela: Oh....(cough)...does someone ask...(inaudible)...no one has ...(inaudible)...to change, ilthat's what you ask. No, no one has ever asked that.

Annabel:Ask rvhat?
Pamela. Pardon?

Annabel: I say, no, no one ever asked

what?

l

Pamela: No, no, we don't change transcripts, '"ve don't do that. Ms. Melongo you have to do what you think is best for you and I totally understand that. Uh...I'm gonna go. L...(inaudible)...I have to take this phone call. Ok?

Annabel: Ok.
Pamela: Thank you. Bye bye.

Annabel: Bye.

32

d?- cs"'Otrpo*lso
Annabel's Phone is ringing..., Annabel. Annabel?
Pame la:

Drr".tUr-r 15, &oo4
Exhibit F

HiAnna, this is Pam Taylor, horv can I help you?

€rrhibi+

(

Annabel: Hey Pam Taylor this is Ms. Melongo, I don't remember... I talk to you last rveek?
Pamela: Yeah,

I remember.

Annabel: Ok. Actually uh.... I think I have".. like I told you I'm going to find out and -..learn more about rvhat happened. I think I have a pretty good idea of what happened.
Pamela: Ok.

Annabel: Uh, do you have the transcript in front of you?
Pamcla:

No, I don't.

Annabel: Uh, because you can not... can I email it to you? And then I call you back? We can not discuss it if you don't read the transcript. There's something there that rvill show you rvhat I'm going to talk
about. Panrela: Ok. Do you have a fax number? A fax machine, can you lax it?

Annabel: No, I don't have a fax machine. Can I email it to you? What's youl...
Pamela: Sure- Ok- This is... ihis is...uh-.. rvhat r.ve're going to do; because I'm looking at the time and uh...uh I don't think I'm have time to do this today. What's the good time for you?

Annabel: When'/
Pamela: Uh, tomorror.v.

Annabel: In the morning?
Pamela: In the mor-.. it rvoulcl have to be...uh...after

l0 O'clock.

Annabel: Ok.
Pamela: Because Annabel: Ok.
Pamela: The email address is: p-a-t-a-y-l-o@cookcountygov.com....(cough)...1 a-t as in taylor-a-1,-l-o@,cookcountygov g-o-v and that's all one word . com repeat that: p as in pam-

I

have to come from my courtroom. So...(cough)...take down my email number-

Annabel: Ok, uh.. can you repeat the: p like in pam, t like in ton, y like rvhat? y like yellorv...

31

Pamela: hm

Annabel: llike lany
Pamela: hm

Annabel: o like orange
Pamela: hm
Annabel : @cookcountygov.com

Pamela: right, but it p-a Annabel: p-a? Pamela: t-a-y-l-o Annabel: y? no t? no t?
Pamela: No, no, no. Let me start all over again.

Annabel: Ok.
Pamela: p as in pam

Annabel: yes
Pamela: a.as in apple Annabel: yes Pamela: t as in tom Annabel: yes Pamela: a as in apple Annabel: yes
Pamela: y as in yellow

Annabel: hm
Pamela: I as in long Annahel: hm
Pamela: o as in oven

1o

Annabel; yes
P am el

a: @co okc ountyzgov. conr

Annabel: Ok. Thank you.
Paniela: Ok. Bye by..

Annabel: you say tomorrorv at l0 O,clock?
Pamela: yeah, give nre a call about 10,30

Annabel: Ok.
Pamela: Ok, thank you.

Annabel: Bye.
Pamela: Bye bye.

a/

&e
Parnela's phone is ringing....

cc.-Jt-R-5sr,te*:

Dus.'Urf lb, )oo j

Pamela: Oftlcial court reporter. this is Pam Ta1,lor.

Annabel: Uh, might I talk to Ms. Taylor?
Pamela: Oh Hi, hor,v are you, I didn't get your email?

Annabel: Ok. So hou,is the Christmas shopping going?
Pamela: Oh, I'm not Christrnas shopping. I'm rvorking. But rvhat did you...uh...you said that you're goiug to ernail rne the transcript it's something you're going to go over u'ith, rvith me and I didn't get the email.

Annabel: You...you haven't got the etnail, yet?
Pamela: No. I haven't got it. When did 1'ou send it?

Annabel: Check. I actually sent it like 5 nrinutes ago.
Parnela: Well, let rne double check again...No. I still haven't gotten it.

Annabel: Anyrvay. n-raybe I...it shorvs that I've sent it. Maybe it's just..just keep on refi'eshing and it's going to be there;because I have it here, it sent...it has been sent.

It isn't there. S/ell, I tell you rvhat I have your number, I'll call you rvhen I get the... the...uh...ernail. But...uh...one of the court reporler said the date of 10-6-09 thatyou ordered, she said the transcript has been r-eadv and it's just readv for you to pick it up; and it's l5 dollar"s and 75
Pameia: Ok, updated it.
cents.

Annabel :Yes, I'm going to corle there like next rveek, I'nt not going to be in court like this u'eek. Just trv to refi'esh it, I can't imagine yott haven't have it yet, Pamela: I still don't have it. I ...1 still don't have it. i keep updating and .-.uh...because that's rvhat I have to hit on this parlicular olte and it is not here. So u'h,v don't I give you...uh...uh... a call because I rvas..,uh.... in the rniddle of making some rnore calls: and I call you.I keep refreshing it and as soon as I get it, I'll give you a call. Ok?

Annabel: Ok.
Parnela: Ok. Bye bye.

Annabel: Bye. lntermission.......Sonre hours later, Pamela Taylor Annabel.

cal led

1z

Annabel phone ringing..... Annabel: Yes, Annabel?
Pamela: Ms. Melongo? Annabel: Yes? Pamela: Hi, this is Pam Taylor.

Annabel: Ok. Uh-..you have the... the email

norn,?

Pamela: Riglit, I have the email and u&at is it you want me to look at?

Annabel: Ok. can yolr go to line like 16?
Pamela: On rvhat page?

Annabel: I think the first page

.

Pamela: Line 16 on the ver-v first page says 'Present'

Annabel: Hold on, hold on. The...the first page, uh....the first page where I say'I understand this morning'... Pamela: Uh..-The second page linel6 says'N,Ir. Flood: We'r'e got it'. The third page line 16 says'Mr. Flood: Correct' .The fourth page line l6 says ' The Court: Thank you'
Annabel : And that's rvhat...that.-.

Pamela:And the fifth page line 16 has.,.uh...lVIs. Laudien's signature Annabel: The...the second page Iine 6.
Pamela: line 6? Ok.

Annabel: Hm. Can you....?
Pamela: 'This morning I understand they re-indicted my client and the new cornplaint is before you for arraignment.'

mean?

Annabel: Ok. When you read that line what did you-.,I...I just rvant your opinion, r.vhat...what does it

Pamela: Well, is Mr. Flood still your attorney? Because he really should be explaining that to you.

Annabel: No, I say...no..,l...l....it's not...it has nothing.,,.
Pamela: Because it is...lt looks like he, Mr. Flood your attorney and he says this morning I understand

q3

the,v re-indicted rny client and the nerv complaint is before -vou for arraignment and the reindictrnent.,..and I'm just a court repofter I'm not a larvyer and really NIr. Flood should be explaining to
yor"r...

Annabel: No...
Pamela: Evidentll', you were indicted under 07...number...07... I don't remember the rest of the number and...and rvhat....sometirnes rvhat they do is...(cough).... re-indict but they re-indict under a different number- I don't know if...uh...there was another crime committed or if they found...(cough)...something else, I don't kno*'that's best explain by your larvyer.

Annabel: No...uh...uh... Pam it lras nothing to rlo rvith that, just lell me in plain English. it says'This morning they re-indicted the client.' It means the...the indictment re'as that morning, right? When you read ihat line. It has nothing to do ri'ith any kind of legal aspect....
Pamela: No, 'This morning' sounds like he found out that morning that you were re-indicted. Datnned, it don't stand the re-indictment happen that nrorning. He found out ihat day...

Annabel: And-..
Pamela: The re-indictment could have happened...could have been before. The could have taken your case before a Grand Jury and re-indicted .vou and tlien the State Attorney told your lar,vyer we reindicted her and he found out that dav...

Annabel; Ok.
Pamela: That morning...

Annabel:Exactly- That's rvhat I rvanted to see. So my larvyer...
Pameia: Yor,r really can't quote me. I mean Ms. N4elongo, lvhat I'rn telling you, I don't rvant you to think that it's the Gospel. I'm just a court reporter. I think that any of these Iegal things that you need to knon, you need to either talk to Mr. Flood or talk to another afforney and they can best explain to you..- I rvas...I do not want you to think that rvhat I'm saying is something that you can-..like say lor instance go before tire court and say, r.veil, I talked to Pam Taylor from the court reporter office and they're gonna say rvho is Parl Taylor tiom the couft reporter office? She's just a court reforter...(cough).."

Annabel: Pam. can you cool off. please? Please.iLrst cool off,
Pamela: Oh, no, I'm not a fed up. I'nr just explaining the situation. I'm...you know...

Annabel: Ok. Now from line 6, the same person says 'This morning they re-indicted...' and then line 6, line 12, they sa1,, he has received it overthe mail and then he got it. Can 1,ou read like... from line 12 to

line l6?

Pamela: 'We did have something came in the mail on the case. It rvas a Grand Jury transcript.' N'hich is exactly that I've just said. Tirey probably got..- they had a Grand...they took your case before a Grand Jurl', they re-indicted you, they go... thel' sent your aftomey the transcript...uh.,.rvhoever is iV{r. Podlasek "....had both copies, I'm sure he rvill be mailing it to counsel.'

"/

Annabel: And then he said ''We'\'e got it.' Pamela: Right, your attorney said 'We've got it'. Which....makes sense rvhat he says earlier'This morning I understand they re-indicted my client.' because he got the transcript stating that they re-

indicted you..

Antrabel: Ok. Pam don't you see there's kind of a contradiction?
Pamela: Oh, no, no, no. It's not up to me to see anl'thing.

Annabel: There's, there's a...
Pamela: It's not up to me to see any4hing. I see exactly u'hat I read and quite fi-ankly it makes perfectly good sense to rne. And It doesn't....it..,,it...it doesn't matter lvhat I think.

Annabel: Ok, let me expl.-,
Pamela: It reall_v doesn't....It doesn't rnatter rvhat I think. It looks like my court reporter heard ivhat she heard, rvrote dorvn rvhat she heard and it sounds perfectly fine to lne,

Annabel: Ok. Uh,..let me see...uh...let me tell you now rvhat I told you, I know exactiy rvhat happened. The same larvyer can not say'This morning I understand they re-indicted...' for him he thinks the reindictment liappened that morning and then the satre person can trot sa-Y at line 16, that'he got it'in the past. That the,.,the transcript rvas sent to hirn in the past. Jt doesn't make sense becarise on the transcript there's a day...the date rvhen the...the....that...the thing happened. There's no way the same person carl say something iike that because those tu,o statements are coniradictorl,.
Pamela: \Vell, that's something you
ha'u'e

to put beibre a judge

N4s. N4elongo

Annabel: Ok.
Pamela: It's something you have to. I've said this before.

Annabel: Uh...Parn....
Pamela: It's something you have to put before a judge if you feel this doesn't make any sense. Then that's something 1'ou have to take before the judge that's hearing your case. This is sornething you have to take before a larvyer and present to hin-r and tell him this doesn't make sense . There's...there's absolutely nothing ihat I or this office can do for you. The transcript is rvhat it is.

Annabel: Uh...Pam...l)ow can 1,ou eive nre some...norv because of this trans...uh...uh...contradiction, I re-read the transcript and I tell you, Pam, I have an excellent memory. I remember things that happened 15 years ago. So when I read that transcript my first...uh...reaction r,vas, I was not there. But when I read the transcript over and over and over again, then I found out that the transcript itselfis a forgery. Lines 61o B have been added to the transcripi and that's ivhy lines the...6 and 8 is a contradiction with

line

16 and then...,

Pamela: I can tell vou on behaif of the offlcial court reporler office that every coufireporter in

+{

this...that rvorks in this office. It's not our business to add anything. Because we are...not only are,,ve ofticers of the court, we are-..we are completely.,.uh...uh...not for or against anybody. We are not for the state, \\'e're not for the defense. we're not there to...to...uh...n'e're just there to do our job,..rvhich is to take dorvn what you hear regardless of rvhat it says or horv it says it. There's no...uh...there rvould be nothing for her or a court reporter, there would be no reason for a court reporter to add in, anything. That.-.because that's not their job. Our job is to simply take down r.vhat rve hear regardless of rvho said it or horv they said it or rvhat they say. We're not there on anybody's side. We're the impartial person of the records. We're just there to make the records. And take dorvn rvhat rve hear and pr.rt it down. So IvIs. Melongo I... that's really...no...uh...there's really nothing else I can do for you as far as this transcript, I think I've given you all the advice I can possibly give you. I think that if you l-rave a problem u'ith the transcript, cause I'm going to stand by this reporter, stand by this transcript and if you really think there are flaws and things in this trarrscrilrt, like I told you previously, I really think you need to motion your case up before the court and explain it to the coufi and...and go from there. But other than that, I'm...uh...Ms. Laudien has transcript, the transcript to the best of her ability and rvhat she fills in her notes, she puts a certificate to that effect and I'rn not going to her to take anything or take anything out or trlrt anything in. Because she has already done what she feels she had had. Annabel: Ok.
Pamela: Ok, rvell, thank you so much Ms. Melongo. You take care.

Annabel: Ok. Bye.
Pamela: B1'e. Bye.

?*

,
From: Melongo Annabel (melongo_annabel@yahoo.com) To: dana.depooter@ ic.fbi. gov ; Date: Fri, December 18,2009 7:16:50 AM Cc: Subject: Forged Court Trancript

htF://us.mgzul.marl.yahoo.com/dcllaunc

Dear Dana, I can't help but come back. Unlike the last time where my hearlng transcript were changed and I had nothing to prove it, this time, another transcript was changed and I have STRONG probable cause showing that something went wrong or something is wrong- I was never arraigned for tte case against me. When I became aware of that, I got the clerk, the docket and the transcript. The clerk and the docket don't mentioned an anaignmenl, the only thing that does is the transcript. I then called the coud reporter offce and I taped ALL the conversations, To listen to them, please go to the \r,/ebsite under the 'Chicago Courthouse' subsection and start reading fom Dec. 8th, 09. The reason I'm contacting you is to know if I have lo add this complaint to my

existingoneoriflshouldlileanewone. lfso,shouldlhavetocomethereandfileacomplaintushouldldoitthroughthewebsitelikeldidthelast
time. Thanks-

Exhibit G

txtsiui+

G

47
'l

l/g/11 g:5? Ph

http://us.mgZU l.mart.yaioo.com/dcllaunc

From: James Flood (blugoose999@yahoo.com) To: melongo_annabel @ yahoo.com ; Date: Tue, December 8,2W9 2:42:21PM Cc: Subject: Re: Fw: Save A Life Foundation
Ms. Melongo:

Exhibit H

€xBiuit

H

Again, I do not have your file, as we returned it to you on your request and have a receipt to that extent. You have a new lawyer. Have that counsel find these facts. I do not represent you. Again, as to your reference that I was "friendly" with the prosecutor, I am cordial to all of my opponents and have been for over 31 years. I treat my opponents with civility and do not resent their professional efforts as my opponent. As a matter of fact, the recently retired Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, Bob Thomas,had as one of his primary goals while in office that attorneys exercise "civility" among themselves as opponents. It actually is in your best interests that your counsel is civil and obtains the best possible cooperation oi the State,s Attorney when dealing with your case. Again, at this time I suggest that you take your complaints to the proper agency or otherwise have your current attorney address it in an if your case has been disposed of by a plea of guilty or finding of guilty. I have not followed the outcome after you discharged me.

appeal,

JAMES FLOOD --- On Tire, l2/8/A9,Melongo Annabel <melango_annabel@ahoo.cont> wrote..
From: Melongo Annabel <melongo_annabel @yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Save A Life Foundation To: blugoose999@ yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2N9,7:27 PM
I forgot another point: the clerk and the docket don't make any mention of an anaignment. The clerk goes further to say, Defendant Not ln Court. ONLY the transcript has the arraignment.

Forwarded Message ---From: Melongo Annabel <melongo_annabel@yahoo.com> To: James Flood <blugoose999@yahoo.com>

---

Sent

Subject: Re: Save A Life Foundation

Tue, December B, 2009 12:59:10 PM

Jim,
I don't think you arraigning me without my knowledge was proper, lll. Const. '1970, art. l, sec. 8. . Do you have any written notice waiving my presence at that hearing? Any proof of the summons being sent to the deiendant to inform her of the anaignment date? An arraignment without the defendant being present, unless requested under a written notice, make the whole charges VOID, lll. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 1136 . lt DOES afiect the outcome of my case; it's only last ftiday, December 4th, 2009, that I found out about it. You never TOLD me about anything. lf so, please provide proofu. That's the only thing I'm asking. I want to see proofs. I have an email for that day that was sent fiom my house during the anaignment, \ivhich occurs, according to the transcript, around 11.am. Furthermore, I also had a scheduled job interview the same day at 10 am which I can also prove. Furthermore, there's nothing on the record showing that you call to inform nE or email me the summons or the indictmeni transcript for that matter. I can't give you the transcript, if you want to see it, then you can order it. By the way, I didn't ask you to withdraw based on your race. I did so based on your lack of interest in the case. You only read it just for the hearing started, you knew nothing about the facts. Furthermore, you became friendly with the State and you were ready to go to trial bdore even receiving a response to your OwN motion for additional discovery. Those are the reasons I looked for a new lawyer. lf your race was a concerned to me, believe me, I would have hired you. Don't try to avoid the REAL issues, Thanks.

Subject

From: James Flood <blugoose999@yahoo.com> To: Melongo Annabel <melongo_annabel@yahoo.com> Sent: Tue, December B, 2009 11:48:29 AM
Re: Save A Life Foundation

Ms. Melongo:
Your statement, "I did not know your involvement in helping the State was so deep", is accusatory in nature, and suggests that I somehow helped the prosecution at some point in your case. You previously discharged me as your attomey alleging that somehow, you would receive better representation if you were represented by an African American attomey. That statement was interpreted by me as an accusation that I did not represent you properly in your case for racial reasons. Both accusations are factully baseless and patently false!

aa

a{)

ll/9/11 9:55PN

http://us.m gZU l .mall.yafroo.com/dc/launc

lf you have a complaint regarding my representation, the agency with which to lodge your complaint is the Attomey Registration and Disciplinary Commission. lf you make your complaint there, I will respond fully. I have every confidence that that agency will
find my conduct and representation beyond reproach.
As to any arraignment on or about June I 8, 2008, I do not have the court transcript nor do I have any recollection ofthe proceedings I doubt that what you say occurred on that day, iftrue, influenced the out come ofyouidefense. The only way an anaingnment in your absence would be improper would be if I had entered a plea of "guihy". No judge would have aliowed that. Howeveq entering a plea of "not guilty" in your absence, if thafs what occured, would be proper and within the scope of my representation ofyou in your felony case.
on that date'

JAMES J. FLOOD --- On Fri, 12/ 4/09, Melongo Annabel

<sne lo ngo_annabel@tahoo.com>

wrote:

To: cp2022@aoi.com, blugoose999@yahoo.com Date: Friday, December 4,2009,11:27 PM

From: Melongo Annabel <melongo_annabel@yahoo.com> Subiecl Re: Save A Life Foundation

indictment transcript over the mail. I would really want lo have that proof. I didnt know your invotuement in helping the State was so deep. No wonder you didn't respond to my calls and you set a trial date before even getting any response fom your own discovery.

Jim, Today, I found out that you did actually present yourself to court on 06/1 8/2008; a day before I sent you this email and got ARRAIGNED without me present in court. Not only that, you NEVER told me anything about that. ln court transcript, you said you received the

From: Melongo Annabel <melongo_annabel@yahoo.com> To: cp2022@aol.com; blugoose999@yahoo.com Sent: Thu, June 19, 2008 11:41:18 PM

Subjeck

Save A Life Foundation

Here's the "political" connection and the proofthat Carol Spizzirri is being investigated:

hllpjiirbc

l

oca1.

go.!oirj lrr isistilt:'.)rct:iien:tt.\J&id:53 5.1-l 19

az
lil9/ll9:55P]\

DAI LY COPY PREF,-RED

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I I 10 11 12 13 14
15

THE COURT:

Let's wait.
State,

MR. ALBUKERK: okay.
THE COURT:
wi tness?

is someone going to get the is, Judge.
We had

MR. P0DLASEK: Miss Laudien

put her down the hal I i n another courtroom.
THE

to

couRT: okay.
InAUSE HELD]

THE COURT: Good

morning,

ma'am.

THE WiTNESS: Good morni ng. THE COURT: Could
me.

you raise your

right hand for

(wrrNESS

st^JoRN)

THE CoURT: Thank you.

Exhibit I-1

6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1

PAMELA TAYLoR

called as a witness on behalf of the People, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIREcT EXAMINATION
BY MR. PODLASEK:

0. A. a.
name for

Good morni ng. Good morning.

would you please state your name and spe11 your rast

the record.

Erqibil
36

t.l

DAI LY C0PY

PREPnTiED

37

1 n, My name js pamela C. Tayior. T A y L 0 R. 2 0. And, pliss Taylor, are you currenily employed? 3 A. yes, I am. 4 0. And where are you emp'loyed? 5 A. I am empl oyed w.ith the State of Il I i noi s. 6 0. In what position? 7 A. I'm an official court reporter and currently I am the 8 Assistant Administrator of the Criminal Division. 9 0. How long have you held the position of Assistant 10 Administrator of the Criminal Division? 11 A. S'ince 2002. 12 0. And briefly could you describe what your duties and 13 responsi bi I i ti es are i n that posi ti on. 14 A. }4y mai n respons'ibi I i ti es j s that I deal wj th the 15 appeals that come out of the First Munjcipal not First 16 Muni ci pa1 District , the Fi rst Di stri ct wh'ich covers Cook County, 17 and I al so supervi se the court reporters at 26th and Cal i forni a. 18 0, Now prior to holdjng that supervisory position what 19 position did you hold? 20 A. I was Assistant Superv'isor at 26th and California. 21 0. And prior to that what position? 22 A. I was an of f i cial court reporter worki ng i n the 23 courtrooms on a dai'ly basi s. 24 0. So in one form or another how long have you been a

31

DAI

LY COPY

PREPH,TED

38

4
5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 2 3

court reporter?

A. I have been licensed since 1973. I have been an official court reporter working with the State of lllinois
1s77.

since

0.

And

for court reporting school of some sort? A. Yes. I am actually a proud chicago public school student, this is where I started my vocation. I went to Chicago Vocational High School, which is what'it was called at the tjme, and my major was machine steno, and from there I went to McCormac Junior Co11ege, where I took the necessary courses to pass the state examination in 1973. 0, Now, does the Cook County Court Reporters Office have an official form manual for the court reporters to follow? A. Yes, we do. We do have a form book. 0. And that form book guides them as to how transcripts should be created and all the rules they should be following? A, That's correct . As of f i c1al court reporters , we are also governed by the state. so we have under the court Reporters Act there'is certain guidelines that we have to follow as far as how many pages per line and the indexes, and then cook county, which is the county that we work'in, we also have our own form book that goes into more specificity as to what to
do w'ith the transcri pts.

,

bri ef 'ly, you went through an educati on process

3B

DAI LY COPY PREPn'iED

39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

to show you what has been previously marked as People's Exhibit No. 4 for identification. I ask if you take the time. I believe there is a copy actually sitting in front of you.
am

0.

I

going

A. 0.

oh, okay,
Could you take a few minutes

or a moment or two and
.)

review that.
(Wi

tness revi

ewi

ng exhi bi t

rHE wITNESS: okay.
MR. P0DLASEK:

Q.

Have you

ever seen that

document before?

transcript created by a court reporter named Laurel
THE }JITNESS

A. Yes, I have. MR. P0DLASEK: Q. And you recognize that as a
THE WITNESS:

Laudien?

0. A. 0. A. 0. A. 0.

: A.

Yes

,I

do

.

And you know Miss Laudien?

yes, yes,

I I

do.

You have worked
have.

with her in the

past?

And Miss Laudjen

you supervise,

yes, she is.
0n page 1

is that correct?

is

one

of the court reporters that

the caption references the defendant, 'is that correct?

of this transcript there 'is a caption

and

39

DAI

LY COPY

PREP..,{ED

40

1 n. I'm sorry, could you repeat that. 2 0. The caption references a specific defendant, is that 3 correct? 4 A. Yes, it does. 5 0. Whose name appears on that transcript? 6 A, Annabel Me'longo. 7 0. I am going to ask you if you recognize the defendant I as she sjts here in the courtroom today. I A. yes, I do. 10 0. Could you point her out for the record. 11 A. There is Miss Melongo sitting at defense table with 12 the 91 asses. 13 THE C0URT: The record will show an in court 14 identification of Miss Melongo. 15 MR. PODLASEK: e. Do you recatl when you first 16 had the opportunity to meet Miss Me'longo? 17 THE WITNESS: A. YeS, I do. 1B MR. PODLASEK: Q. And when was that? 19 THE WiTNESS: A. I met Miss Melongo in this 20 courtroom when I was subpoenaed to come here. 21 0. Was that the first time you had ever met her? 22 A. That was the first tjme that I had met her personally, 23 yes. Eye contact. 24 0. Now prior to that had you had any kind of

AA

DAI LY COPY PREP._.,{ED

41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

communications

with Miss

Melongo?

A. 0. A. 0. A. 0.
a

Yes,
How

I did.

were those communications effectuated?

By te"lephone.
hJho

initiated the conversations? The first conversation I believe I called
did you actually speak to her or djd you leave her
spoke

Miss Melongo,
And
message?

A. 0. A.

I believe I

to

her.

At anytime d'id you have occasion to call lviiss Melongo
Yes,

and leave a voice ma'il?

I did.
at this tjme I
am

MR. PODLASEK: Judge,

going to
the

ask to play an excerpt from People's Exhibit No. 1
witness.
THE C0URT:

for

Alt right. you may proceed. MR. PODLASEK: I am also tendering to the jury and to the defense counsel a copy of the transcript of what she is about to hear. MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, for the record I would object to any, just a port'ion being given to the jury. I would ask that the entire recording be played to the jury. THE COURT: Let's have a side bar. I thought this

4I

DAI LY COPY PREP..,\ED
1

42

was agreed
p'lease.

to

pri

or bri ngi ng the j ury out.

Miss Reporter,

2
3

(S'ide bar hel d as f o1 l ows : )
THE COURT: l,Je

4 5 6 7

are on the record now. Prior to

the j ury
phone

bei

ng brought out we di scussed the i ssues
Miss Taylor

of

provi di ng

the jurors with copies of the transcripts of the three different

I
11

B

10

12
13

is going to be testifying about, There was no objection at that tjme. What is the objection now? llR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I misunderstood Mr. Podlasek, He said that he was going to show an excerpt and what I thought he meant by that was he was only going to p'lay part of the audlo,
calls that
IHE COURT:

That's fi

ne.

14
15 16
make

l4R, ALBUKERK: We are

fine;

however,

I

want to
me

a record on other stuff , Judge, you are proh'ibiting
make running

from making a record on my objections; you want me to do

it

17
18 19

afterwards. I have to
testimony was hearsay

objections.

The previous

20
21

22 23

24

of the previous witness and should have been a running objection to all of that. The only reason I didn't make'it is because you were prohibiting us from putting the stuff on the record unti I a s.i de bar. I have to be cl ear with the appellate court that I would be making every time I say the word "objection" I have basis to do so and, you know, because of your rul i ng I can't put the basi s on the record and

4?,

DAI LY COPY PREP.,RED

43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1I 20 21 22 23 24

ttre appellate court

is

going

THE COURT:

I will certajnly

to say I

waived her rights.

record,

allow you to make a

You

certainly did object that the witness had been

to that was she was going to report her. so I did find that of a threat of any physical nature, it was not disclosed, and it didn't appear to be any kind of discovery violation. so that's overrured.
threatened by Mjss Melongo and the follow up

Rather,

r was overruling

your objection and putt'ing

jt

on the
record,

If

record, so when we took a break
you have a
am

I'l I i et you make a ful I

certainly you can. I
means.

different basis to object for anything e1se,
not precluding any objections by any other objection

MR. ALBUKERK: The

I

had was

all
have

the testimony was hearsay and none of that testimony should
come

in as hearsay.
THE

C0URT: Let's put

that

on when we take

a

break.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
(WHEREUPON,

the fol

1

owi

ng proceedi

ng

was resumed
THE C0URT;

in

open court before the

All right. you may proceed, State. MR, PODLASEK: Judge, I will tender a copy of Peopl e's Exh'ibi t No. 5 to the court al so for your use,

jury as fo1 i ows: )

43

DAI LY C0PY

PREPndED I
wi I

44

'l
2 3 4 5 6 7 I I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
marked as People's

0.

Mi

ss Tayi or,

I

show you what i s

Exhibit No. 5 for identification purposes.
not?

0. A. It's a transcript of the second conversation that I had wi th Mi ss l'4e'longo. MR. PoDLASEK: Judge, at this t'ime I am going to ask to play that conversation,
THE COURT: Go ahead,

A. yes. MR. P0DLASEK: Q. It's a transcript, is it THE WITNESS: A. YES, it iS. Do you know what -it 'is a transcri pt of?
THE WITNESS:

MR. PODLASEK:

This is a message that you left for
yes,

Miss Melongo?
THE wITNESS:
(WHEREUPON,

A,

the

audi

o tape was

p'layed

.)

e. Is that a true and accurate recording of the message that you left for l'liss Melongo? THE WITNESS: A, YeS, it is. MR. PODLASEK: e. Why did you leave that message? What prompted you to do that? THE WITNESS: A. Again, as I said before, this was the second conversation that I had, the second time that I called Miss Melongo. I had called her initially because Miss Laudien had presented the situation to me that she had been
MR. PODLASEK:

44

DAI

LY COPY

PREP^r(ED

45

12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11

dealing with Miss Melongo and how she had been calling her on a

office policy and, quite frankly, I thought I had an answer to her solut"ion why she thought she was in one place and not the other -- she hung up on me. So I called back and I left th'is message to state, "If you want to discuss this further then just deal with me." I didn't want her to deal with Miss Laud-ien, I did not want her to deal with my cler-ical staff, because I was also told she was calling there as
Miss Melongo to explain the

cont'inual bas'is about thi s transcri pt . so when I cal I ed

well.

0.
way?

Did Miss Melongo respond

to your telephone call in

any

did. She called me back. I am goi ng to show you what 'is marked as People's Exhibit No. 6 for identification. I will tender a copy to the defense. Judge, for your use I wjll tender a copy to
Yes, she
you.
THE COURT: And t'4R, P0DLASEK:

A. 0.

this is people's No. 6?

No. 6, your Honor, for

'identi f i cati

on

.

THE wITNESS: Thank you.

MR, P0DLASEK: known

Q.

Do you recognize

the

document

as

Peopl

bit No. 6? THE I,JITNESS: A. YeS, I
e's
Exhi

do.

45

DAI LY C0PY PREP^r(ED

46

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23

e. And what is that? A. This is a transcrjpt of the very 'long conversatjon that Miss Melongo and I had after people's Exhibit No. 5. 0. So this is in response to your voice mail that we just heard from you to Miss Melongo? A. Right. 0. And who initiated this conversation? A. Mj ss Me'longo cal I ed me, 0, At this time I am going to play you a recording of this conversation. Follow along in the transcript, if you want.
Nn. PODLASEK:

the audio taped was played.) MR. PODLASEK: you're right.it was a long
(WHEREUP0N,

transcript.
audi

Does

that fairly

and accurateiy

depict, at least

o

wi

se, what conversat'ion took pi ace?

A. yes. MR. P0DLASEK: Q. Do you know where this
THE wITNESS:

transcri pt came from that you have before you as
Peopl

e's

Exhi bi

t No. 6? A. e.
When

THE WITNESS:

you say

it

came

from? It
the

was produced by

Mi

ss

Laudi en.

MR, P0DLASEK:

The

transcript, No. 6, of

te'lephone conversat'ion.

A.

0,

0h, the telephone conversation. f,/here this
yes.

came from?

46

DAI LY COPY PREF,

,I{ED

47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

n. 0. A. 0.
that
we

You j

ust gave 'it to

me.

So you have never seen
No.

that

before?

just played for you, was there
No.

At anytime prior to the recording of this conversation
any other conversation

between you and Miss Melongo?

A. 0. A. 0. A. 0. A. 0.

So thi
So

s

ref I ects the enti

re conversat'ion?
ever ask you 'if
she

That was it.

at

anyti me di d

Mi

ss

Me'longo

could record the conversation?
No.

At anytime djd
No.

she ever

tell

you

that

she was

recording a conversation?

portion which we have just p'layed on her website?

At anytime did Miss Melongo ever tell you that she was going to post this conversation in transcript form and the audjo

A. 0.

No.

Did you ever give her permission to post this

conversat'ion

A. 0.

that was recorded? No, I did not.

This conversat'ion took place approximately when,

if

you remember?

AA

DAI

LY C0PY

PREP^r{ED
that I called
her
she

48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 1I 2A 21 22 23 24

n.

Uhm,

there was a

first

conversation

I don't know if she called right back after I left a message or as it's sa'id in the first transcript that I was going to be off for a couple of days and she call back later. I'm not
hung up and

the day M'iss Laudien brought this to my attention and then

0. But was 'it i n December of 2009? A, Yes. O. Was it in the early part or later part of December? A. It would have been the early part of December because I take off at the end every year. 0, So could it have been on or about December 14th or
lsth?

sure

of the time frame.

A.
take off.

That sounds correct, because pretty much
Now

after that I

this conversation, did you have another tel ephone conversat'ion wi th Mi ss Mel ongo? A, Fol I owi ng Peopl e's Exhi bi t No. 6?
follow'ing

0.

o. A.

Yes.

No,

I

never had another conversation,

only conversation
was subpoenaed

I

I believe, The
I

had

with

M'iss Melongo may have been when
Melongo?

0, A,

to court.
only had one conversation with Miss
one

So you

Right, This was the last

that I

remember having

48

DAI LY COPY

PREF^r{ED

49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1

Indjcating to exhibit.

)

e's No. 5. I don't recall a th'ird conversation right now. I really don't.
Before Peop.le's No. 6 there was Peopl

0. A.

Lrlere

there two prior conversations before this?

If

you have someth'ing

O. I will

to ref resh my memory.

show you what

No. 7

for identification purposes. I
(Wi

I

have marked as People's Exhibit

would ask

if

you wourd

review that.

tness revi

ewi

THE WITNESS:

copy

of People's No. 7.

A. 0kay. I do remember. MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I am going to give you a 0.
Now, does People's

ng exhi bi t

.)

Exhibit No. 7 take
No.

p'lace
1?

wjthin a short period of time after Peopie's Exhjbit
THEWITNESS:

A.

A. people'sExhjbitNo.l? MR. PODLASEK: Q. I mean No. 6. No. 6 right now I remember because she called again
to e-nail the transcript to me.
THE

and wanted

She wanted me

to

look at the transcript.
C0URT: For the record the
7.
Now

jurors

have been

given copies

of People's Exhibit
MR. PODLASEK:

what Peopl e's Exhibi

t

Q.

woutd you

briefty

describe

No. 7 i s.

49

DAI LY COPY

PREPnxED
100ks

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24

rHE WITNESS:

like a transcript of the conversation that we had when Miss Melongo called and wanted me to look at the transcript. t4R. pODLASEK: I am going to p'ray a recording of this conversation.
(I^JHEREUP0N,

A.

people's Exhibit No. 7

the audio tape was p'layed.

)

MR. P0DLASEK:

Q.

Do you

recall that

conversation?
THE WITNESS:

A.

YeS,

I

do reca]I the
the
time?

conversation

now.

MR. PODLASEK;

e. Okay. Does that represent

entire conversation that you had with Miss Me'longo at that
THE

wirNESS:

0. A. 0.

A. Right. correct.

At anytime did
No.

M'iss Melongo ask your permission to

record that conversation?

At anytime did Miss Melongo te1-l you that she was recording that conversation? At anytime did Miss Melongo teil you she was going to post this to her Internet sjte for the entire world to l'isten to and look at the transcripts?

A. 0.

No, she didn't.

A. 0.

No.

Did she

in fact tell

you she was going

to

make

tr.n

DAI LY C0PY

PREP',r(ED

51

15 16
17 18 19 2A 21 22 23 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14

transcripts out of these phone conversations?

A. 0. A. 0.

No, she didn't.

At anytime did you give her perm'ission to record these
No.

conversations?

to the general pub'lic? A. No, I d'idn't 0. I am goi ng to show you what 'is marked as People's Exhibit No. B for identification. Judge, I am tendering a copy of the exhibit to you, to the jurors, as well
conversations
.

At anytime did you give her perm'iss'ion to post these

as counsel.

I B.
Do you recognize

would ask

if

you would review People's

No.

A. This was the subsequent conversation after she felt that I received the e-mail. 0. I am going to play this conversat-ion for you.
(WHEREUP0N,

A. yes. 0. whatisthat?

that exhibit?

the aud.io taped was pl ayed. )

MR, P0DLASEK:

e.

Do you

recail that

conversat'ion?
THE WITNESS:

A. YeS, I do. MR. PODLASEK: Q. That conversation took place

51

DAI LY COPY

PREP^,(ED

52

9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1I 2A 21 22 23 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B

within a very short period of time of the very first
conversation we played?

A. sequence. Rapid. you know, a 0. December 14th, 15th A. Right. 0. And maybe the 16th A. Right.
THE WITNESS:

YeS,
day

aII of this
two.

was .in

or

o. A,
0'

of

2ao9?

Exactly.

At anytime did Miss Melongo te11 you that she was recording this conversation that we just p'layed for you, People's Exhibit No. 8?

A. 0. A. 0.

No, she did not. Did she

tell

you she was going

to transcribe that

conversation?

No, she did not. Did she ask your permiss.ion

to record that

conversation?

A. No, she did not. 0. At anytime did I'liss Melongo inform you that she was going to post thjs conversation to a website that she controlled and created called www, Illinois Corruption.net? A. No, she did not.

JL

trt

DAI LY COPY PREF^RED

53

1 0. At anytime djd you give her permjssion to record this 2 conversation or to post 'it to the knelt? 3 A. No, I did not. 4 MR. PODLASEK: Can I have one minute, Judge? 5 THE C0URT: you may. 6 InAUSE HELD] 7 MR. PODLASEK: e. Miss Taylor. 8 THE wITNESS: A. yes? 9 MR, P0DLASEK: Q. At anytime once you found 10 actua"liy, how djd you find out about these conversations? 11 THE WIINESS: A. I received an e-mai1 through my 12 work e-mail to go to th-is particular website. 13 0. Do you know who sent you that e-mail? 14 A. Actua11y, I don't. I only opened up the e-mail 15 because it was from my work e-mail, so I have to open all of the 16 e-mails. And I went to the website and I saw that there was 17 something to the effect that said, "And this is what Mjss Tay"lor 18 had to say," and I immediately contacted the State's Attorney's 1I office. 20 0. Do you know what website you were directed to? 21 A. fhe one that you previousiy stated. It sounds like 22 that was the website I was directed to. 23 0. Di d you pl ay the aud'io? 24 A. No.

trl JJ

DAI LY COPY PREF,

.,{ED

54

4
5

1 2 3

0. A.

You

just contacted the state's attorneys? I just contacted the State's Attorney's office, MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I have no further questions.
THE

couRT:

Ail right.

cross.

I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

6 7 B

cRoss-EXAMTNATIoN

BY MR. ALBUKERK:

0.
A. 0.
correct?

Miss Taylor,

its's

transcript, correct?
A crime?

a crime to alter an official court

Correct. It's. . (pausing. ) Right. And it's also a crime to help cover up a crime,
Correct.
Now we

A. 0.

just

heard those transcripts, and

'it's pretty is
that

clear that
correct?

M"iss Melongo

believed that the transcript in

question, the June 18, 2008, transcript wasn't correct;

A. 0. A. 0. A.

That's what she bel i eved, yes.
She

cited to you severa'l d'ifferent

ways

transcri pt was not correct?

that that

yes, she did.
She pointed

out to you that the Clerk's office didn't

have her being arraigned
She said that.

that day, June 18th of

2A0g?

54

DAI LY COPY PREI-, ,r{ED

55

1 0. And the Clerk's office is supposed to record whether 2 or not she was arra'igned on June l8th of 2008? 3 A. I don't work for the clerk's office, so I can't speak 4 for the Clerk's office and what they are supposed to do. 5 0. Right. But Miss Melongo pointed that out to you? 6 A. I bet i eve she d.id. 7 0. And she also pointed out to you I believe that the B court sheets and the half sheets also ind'icated that she had not I been arraigned on June l8th of 2008? 10 A. If that's what you say she sa-id, she probably did say 11 all of that. 12 0. Now, you are the supervisor for the Court Reporters 13 off ice? 14 A. Correct. 15 0. But you are also a court reporter as well? 16 A. Correct. 17 0. So you do have duties, you have to go to the courtroom 1B and you have to sometimes take transcripts? 19 A. I don't go to court anymore, ho. 2A 0. Wel1 , at that time when this was going on in December 21 of '09, were you stil'l going to courtrooms or were you in the 22 office? 23 A. I've been pretty much in the office since about 2003. 24 0. So in any case, then your duties are administrative

55

DAI

LY C0PY

PREF,.r{ED

56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

then?

A. 0,
case?

For the most part, yes.
And Miss Laudien had asked you

to getinvolved jn this

A, 0. A.

Correct.
So your

job actually is to deal with, we11, complaints

of thi s nature, correct?
Correct.
MR. ALBUKERK: May
THE

I

have one moment?

coURT: you

may.
HELD]

IrAUSE
MR. ALBUKERK:

Q,

Your

client

was a voice

mail that you

left

initial

message

on my client's

-- I

to my
am

referring to People's Exhibit No. 5,
THE wITNESS:

A. okay. MR. ALBUKERK: Q. And this is the message that

you

I

A. 0. A. 0. A. 0.

eft
Risht,

for
Risht.
And

my

client?
you

in that message

told her specifically not to

contact Miss Laudien?
Correct.
And you tol d my c'l i ent

to not contact

anybody i n the

56

DAILY COPY

PREPARE

57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Court Reporters

office except for

you?

that you estimated that all three exhibits that the State had presented, you think it
These conversations

A. 0.

Correct.

that

had

took about 15 mi nutes

of your t'ime?

your

ability to do your job? A. No. I think on one transcript have to take another phone call.

A. 0. A. 0. A. 0.

It

looks

like it took longer,

Maybe 20 minutes?
Yeah.

25

mi

nutes?

Somewhere.

Okay. But 'in no way did these conversations
you can te11

impede

that I did

o. A. 0.

Right.
So

at that point I

ended

the conversation with

Miss Melongo.

Right. But in no way did any of these conversations, the posting of these conversations interfere with the work of
the Court Reporters office?

A.
no.

Interfere with the work of the Court Reporters office,
MR. ALBUKERK: Can
THE

24

I

have a moment?

couRT: You may.

c'1 JI

DAI

LY COPY

PREPARE

58

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 2 3 4

IPAUSE HELDI

MR. ALBUKERK: i

t's

Q.

The Court Reporters Office,

a busi ness, correct?
THE WITNESS:

A.

A bus'iness in what sense? That

makes money,

that doesn't makes money?

0. A,

That makes money.
No, we don't make any money, Individually the court

reporters, they get a salary and they get pa'id for the
transcri pts.

0. A.

And they

get paid for the transcripts in part from the
ce?

State's Attorney's offi

They get paid

for the transcripts depending who orders

the transcripts, That could be a private attorney, that could

that could be the State's Attorney's office, that could be the Public Defender's office, that could
be a private person, be the State Appellate Defender.

It

could be anybody.

Anybody

can come in and order a transcript and pay

0.

But

of the largest

of transcripts, is that correct? MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I wiil object to that. THE C0URT: 0verruled, You can answer that.
purchasers

in any event, the State's Attorney's office is

for it.

one

THE WITNESS:

A.

A. No, they are not. MR. ALBUKERK: e. No?

No.

5B

DAI
1

LY COPY

PREPARE.

59

MR, ALBUKERK:

Q.

Who

is the largest

purchaser of

2 3

transcri pts?

4
5 6 7 8

of Illinois. Isn 't the State of Il linoi s purchasi ng those transcripts on behalf of the State's Attorney's office? A. No, the State of Illinois is purchasing the
State transcri pts on
appeal s. MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you behal

A. 0.

f of, they are the ones that handl e the
for clarifying that.

I
11

10

is still

0.
one

However, the

State's Attorney's office

of the largest
NR, PODLASEK:

purchasers

12 13

of your transcripts? 0bjection to that, Judge, as asked

and answered,
THE C0URT:

14 15
16

0verruled.
amount on

THE WITNESS:

A. Yes, they are. MR. ALBUKERK: Q. Can you put a dollar
how much

17
18 19

a yeariy basis

the State's Attorney's office pays the
Sustained as

court reporters?
THE COURT:

20
21

MR. ALBUKERK:

my client, my

Q.

to that.
you were speak'ing with

Now when

22 23 24

recordings

A. At one point, yes, she was. MR. ALBUKERK: Q, And she wanted those audio to determine if in fact a mistake had been made on
THE WITNESS:

cfient

was asking you

for the audio recordings?

59

DAI LY COPY PREPARE

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2A 21 22 23 24

ttre June l8th
wanted.

of 2008 transcript?
MR. P0DLASEK:

0bjection, Judge, as to what she

THE CoURT: Sustai ned,

Q, Well, in any event, you are aware or you are aware that a lot of court reporters use
MR. ALBUKERK:

different

systems

THE WITNESS:

A. Yes, they do. MR. ALBUKERK: e, And a lot of the court
do,
some

in fact to take transcripts,

correct?

reporters use audio recordings, right?

A. 0.

Some

don't
2011

,

At this point in time

and,

about today and here

in

--

of course, I

am

talking

most

of the court reporters to say "most" because I

actually do use a recording device?

A.

You know what,

real I y

that it's recording, because sometimes I don't see that she has the ear plugs. Because sometimes they use the
necessarily
mean

Is Miss Kerns using a court reporting device right now? I'm assuming that's a microphone but that doesn't

A.

can't say that . Some do, some don't. 0. Well, today is used a recording device, correct?

I don't

want

ear plugs because

O.

it

helps them hear better.

So even though there

is a microphone out there, that

may not be recordi ng?

60

DAI LY COPY

PREPARE

61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1I 20 21 22 23 24

n. 0. A.

that's her equipment. Do you ever train court reporters'in how to use that
have no idea;

I

court reporting device?

No. I train court reporters on how, what to do as far

as managing a court

their own equipment and use it as they see fit to do their job the way they think best. But as far as training, training, I don't train anybody to use audio equipment.
that audi o i s recordi ng thi ngs , 'it 's recording everything that's going on, correct? A. I can't answer that. What audio are you talk'ing
Ri

call,

but the court reporters come here w'ith

0.

ght

.

Now when

about?

o. htel A, Because see, I personally don't use audio equ'ipment. When I was a court reporter I didn't use it, so. 0, Well, has anyone ever told individual court reporters
that they
record?

have
What

to stop recordi ng when they are not on the

to expl a1n about the audi o recordi ng i s work product. So if this particular court reporter can choose to record or not record. Another court reporter can choose to record this particular session and not another. It's not a job requirement is what I am saying. So when you are
have

A. that it's

I

asking me about audio recording, because

it's

not a job

6I

DAI LY COPY

PREPARE.

62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16

I can't give you any definitive answer. O. But it's your position that if audio is made you are not going to turn it over, correct? A. If I do an audio am I going to turn it over? No, because it's my work product. The only thing I am requ'ired by law to give you is the transcript. 0. So i f you are g'iven a subpoena, whi ch i s a court order asking for audio, you are not going to turn it over? A. If I am given a subpoena to turn over audio that I may still have in my possession as an official court reporter for the State of Illinois, I will probably come to court with the
requirement

Attorney General who represents
THE COURT: Any

me.

MR, ALBUKERK: Thank you,

redirect?

MR. n0DLASEK:

Briefly.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

REDIREcT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PODLASEK:

O.
Mi

You were asked on cross-examination

by counsel whether

or stated that she bel i eved that the transcript was incorrect, is that true? A. Yes, He asked me 'if she bel i eved that and I guess that's what she bel'ieved. I don't know what she bel i eved. 0. Do you know actually what she believed or whether she
ss
Mel

ongo belleved

o/.

DAI

LY COPY

PREPARE

63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1I
20

was 1 yi ng

to

you?

just trying to help Miss Melongo to the best of my abiiity. O. Do you know whether she was actualiy in court that
have no

A.

I

idea, I

was

day?

A. O.
of

No,

I don't know. I
2008?

wasn't there.

So the only thing you have

to go by is that transcript

June 18th

At anytime since you have been jntroduced to M-iss Melongo either telephonically through e-mails or in
have you ever committed
her?

A. 0.

of

Right, the

official court transcript.
person

or planned to

commit a crime against

A.

No.

MR, ALBUKERK:
THE COURT:

Judge,

I

am

going

to object
Judge.

0verruled.

MR. P0DLASEK:

I

have no

further questions,

THE C0URT: Any

recross based on that?

MR. ALBUKERK: yes.

21 22 23 24

REcROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. ALBUKERK:

0.

You

just said the only thing

you had

to go by was the

court transcript, correct?

53

DAI LY COPY PREPARE

to
me, yes.

64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

n. 0. A,

Well, but you had other things to go by. You had the 0h, I stand corrected.
We

That was the only thing that was presented

Clerk's computer information, you could have gone by that?
do have access

Clerk's computer and I did look at the Clerk's computer. f'm
sorry,

to

the

0. A. 0. A.

And so you knew

that the Clerk's

computer indicated

that no arraignment

had taken place

I

that

day?

knew

that the Clerk's

computer stated that

Miss Melongo was not present

Exactly. And that is the question that was brought before me is that Miss Me'longo felt she wasn't in court, and the first conversation I had with her I was explaining to her, "Right, you were weren't in court at the assignment call but you
were

for the assignment call. Right. Which is on June l8th of 2008?

in court."

0. A.
the other

to the transcript? According to the transcript in the other cajl. THE COURT: What was the last thing you said,
According

on

call not the ass-ignment call?
THE hIITNESS:

Not the assignment

was assjgned

to

call but when she
call.

Judge

Schreier.

Judge Schreier's However, wander

MR. ALBUKERK:

asking you was because

just to

Q.

the question a

little bit

I

was

you

64

DAI LY COPY

PREPARE
to go by was the

65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

were asked questions, so the on"ly th'ing you had

transcript, correct?
THE wITNESS:

true. You could have gone by the Clerk's record, r'ight? A, I could have gone by the Clerk's record if that's what my focus was on. When i t was presented to me, Mi ss Me'longo's s'ituat"ion, which is Miss Melongo felt that she was not present, when I was presented with all the information that Miss Melongo felt that she was not present, when I looked on the Clerk's computer and I realized that she was not present for the ass'ignment call, but according to the transcript she was present for Judge Schre'ier's call. The telephone conversation I had with her, that's what I was trying to explain to her, because I
know

A. Exactly. MR. ALBUKERK: Q. However, that's not exactly

ljke that mixed up. And the very first conversation that's what I was trying to explain to her is that, yoLr're right, you weren't present at the assignnent cat\. 0. Yes, you're correct, People get courtrooms get mixed up. In fact, court reporters sometimes get courtrooms mixed up?

th'is is a daunting place and peopie get courtrooms and th-ings

in talk'ing to people like

Miss Melongo every single day,

A. 0.

No.

Court reporters never

make

a mistake in their

transcripts?

65

DAI

LY COPY

PREPARE
l,,le

66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1I 19 20 21 22 23 24

cal

I that typos.

n.

0h, do people? Yes, everybody can make a mjstake.
MR. ALBUKERK:
t,1R. P0DLASEK;

Okay. Thank

you.

Briefly.
we haven't heard

THE COURT:

heard

it

once,

I

I don't want to hear jt again. Are you done yet?

If

it once. If I've

thought you were

finished. Are you finished, Mr. Albukerk? MR. ALBUKERK: Can I have just one moment.
IeAUSE HELD]

MR. ALBUKERK: Yeah

, we ' re al I

done

,

Sorry

,

Judge. MR. PODLASEK: No.
THE COURT: Thank

you, ma'am. You may step

down.

THE wITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: You

can proceed, State.

MR. P0DLASEK: We have one

further witness that

we

, we'1 'l take a lunch break now. You have been sitting here for sometime, so we'l I bri ng you back out after I unch. Al I ri se for the j ury,
THE COURT: Ladi

prefer to call that witness after lunch,

if

you don't mind.

es and genil

emen

(hJHEREUPON,

the j ury

exi

ted the

courtroom,
THE COURT:

)

seated i n

court

0kay. Defense everyone may be you di d want to make a record of earl ier

66

0fficial Court Report s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I
1

14

proceed? MR. PODLASEK: Yes, Your Honor, we are.
THE COURT; You may

ca1'l your next witness.

MR. P0DLASEK: Judge,

Laurel Laudien.
THE

If I

at this

t'ime the State calls

may be excused,

I will bring her in.

couRT: okay.
InAUSE HELD]

THE COURT: Good

morning, ma'am. Would you raise

11
12

0

your right hand
(wirNEss
st,loRN)

for

me,

THE C0URT: Thank

you,

Please take a seat,
Exhibit I-2

3 14 15 16 17 18 1I 20 21 22 23 24
1

LAUREL LAUDIEN

called as a witness on behalf of the People, having been first
du'ly sworn, was
BY MR.
PODLASEK:

exami

ned and testi f i ed as fol
DIREcT EXAMINATION

I ows

I

0.
I

Would you please

state your fu'l1

name and spe11 your

ast

name

A, 0. A. 0. A.

for the record,
Laurel E, Laudien. L A U D, as
Are you currently employed?
Yes,

in Dav'id, I

E

N,

And what
0f f i c j al

position do you hold or what job do you hold?
Court Reporter
wi

th the State of Il l'inoi s

.

I4

&SiU+ r. I

DAI

LY COPY

PREPARET

1

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

0. A. 0. A, 0.
reporter?

Where

are you located?

26th and California,
How

long have you held that position?

28, 29 years w'ith the
And yes. And you went
Yes.

State.

As a court reporter 34.

did you have any particular train1ng as a court

A. 0. A, 0,
Reporters

to school for that?

Now,

A. 0.
asked

is there a form manual for the Cook County Court that is given to you?
how you

uhm, yes.

Is that
Yes.

format your transcri pts when you are

to ask you some questions about what I have marked as Peopl e's Exh'ibi t No . 4 f or -identi f i cati on purposes
am

A. 0.

to

prepare a transcript?

I

going

.

Judge,

if I

can approach?
THE

couRT: you

may.

MR. P0DLASEK:

I

am

tendering you People's Exhibit

No. 4

for identification

and ask you

if

you would take

a look at

that.
THE wITNESS; okay,

MR. PODLASEK:

Q.

Do you recogn'ize

that

document?

.t.
1J

t
I

DAI LY COPY PREPARE,

16

1 rHE WITNESS: A. Yes. 2 t4R. P0DLASEK: e, And what i s 'i t , p1 ease 3 THE TJITNESS: A, It's the transcript of the 4 hearing before Judge Schreier on June 18, 2008, 5 MR. PODLASEK: e. Now, on the f-irst page of that 6 transcri pt where does the defendant's name fi rst appear? 7 THE WITNESS: A. In the capt-ion 8 0. And whose name appears in that case? I A. Annabel Melongo as defendant. 10 0. Is there a case number? 11 A. There's two case numbers. 12 0. t,Jhat are they, pl ease. 13 A. 07 cR 02341-01; 08 cR 10502-01. 14 0, Now, below the caption of the case whose names are 15 typi ca1 1y 'l 'isted 'in a transcri pt? 16 A. The state's attorney and whoever represents the 17 defendant or if the defendant is proceed'ing pro se then that 18 would be listed there. 19 0, And in this particular transcript before you whose 20 names appear below the caption specifically? 21 A. Paul Chevlin for the State's Attorney, assistant 22 state's attorney, and Mr. James J. Flood representing the 23 defendant, 24 0. And those are the names of the people who are
,

.

T6

DAI

LY COPY

PREPARE.

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

appearing

in court on that particular date, is that correct?
Yes.

A. 0. A.
of
Mi

Now,

in the body of the transcript is the defendant
name?

ever identified by

Well, when she spoke. But Mr. F'lood says, "on behalf
Mel

ss

ongo.

"

0. A. 0. A. 0.

So Mr. Fl ood does

the speak'ing f i rst i n th'is

transcri pt?
Right.

I,rlell,

is the defendant

referenced as Annabel Me\ongo

or typi cal'ly the defendant?
And 'in anywhere yes. What page would page 3. l4R. PODLASEK: Judge,

I

would put

THE DEFENDANT

if

she speaks,

in that transcript do you reference

defendant

A. 0. A.

or anything that might be said by the defendant? that be on?

at this time for clarity sake, I am going to ask to tender to members of the jury copies of Peop'le's Exhibit No. 4 for identification, which is a copy of the June 18, 2008 transcript before Judge Schreier. I talked to
counsel and

I

believe he has no object'ion.
THE C0URT:

you may proceed.

(Documents tendered

to the jurors.)

I1

DAI

LY COPY

PREPARE,

1B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 12 13 14 15 '16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Nn, PoDLASEK:

Q.

Did you create that transcript

at the request of

anybody?

0. Just so people understand how a transcript request comes in, can you just go through the procedure for us, A. Somebody would call our office and request the transcript, they would take the information down and put it on a transcript order form, and then they would give it to the
reporter that was assigned that day.

A. yes, l'1R. PoDLASEK: Q, And who was that? THE WITNESS: A, Miss Metongo.
THE wITNESS:

0. A.
building,

Your

The other bui l di ng . The admi ni

office is located in this building?
strati ve off
i

ce

0kay. And as part of th'is order what would an individual have to give as far as informatjon for you to be able to create that transcri pt?

0,

A.

The date

it

was heard, what judge,

case, telephone number so that
compl

I

can

call them back when 'it's
you are creating the

the

name

of

the

eted.
Now,

0.

taking a step back.

When

transcript can you please expiain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how that is done. I can see the court reporter in this
case, but how do you and what equipment do you use when you
do

1B

DAILY COPY

PREPARE
writer like
she

19

4 5

2 3

1

trri sz

7 A. I also have a computer with court reporter software 8 and that's what I use to create the transcri pt. 9 0. At anyt'ime do you have audio recordings of the 10 proceedings before Judge Schreier or any of the judges you are 11 transcribing for? 12 A. Yes. Yes. 13 0. And how do you make those recordings? 14 A, L.lith the writer. I have a microphone plugged in, and 15 I usually put it up by the judge's bench so that I can hear 16 better, and I also usually wear headphones so that I can monitor 17 better and in case there is other noise going on in the 1B courtroom, 19 0. Now during the course of a year how many transcripts 20 would you say you have taken down? 21 A. Thousands. 22 O. Do you prepare an actua'l physical transcript on each 23 of those cases? 24 A. Not at the time. Not until it's ordered.

6

is using. 0. A.

A, I

use a computer-aided transcription

And ind'icating the
R'ight okay.
.

court reporter in the court today?

o.

I9

DAILY COPY

PREPAREL
in a
would never be printed

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

0.

So

if

you had a transcript from say yesterday

courtroom and no one ever ordered

it, it

out, i s that correct?

A. 0. A. O.
the

Correct.
Now

what do you do with the information, sjnce

no paper anymore

like I

I

see

used

to 25 years

ago?

No, no paper.
What happens to

the informat'ion that you take

down on

computer?

It's stored. And depending upon the writer that the court reporter uses, it is stored on either an SD card secured digita'l card, little tiny card or it could be a diskette or it could just be paper. There is also a ram that stores the information. And that's about it. 0. So in your particular case, how do you typ'ica11y store
your i nformati
on?
my

A.

computer onto,

A. fhe audio portion is backed up on my external hard drives. It is no longer on the writer after a month, It is

for the State I have to keep the steno notes, the paper does no longer exist, but the steno notes are on a digital form, I have to back up those for the State to be stored forever or as long as the diskettes will last or CD's will last. 0. And what happens to the audio portion?
no

A.

At the end of the month I back up everything off of

an

DAI LY COPY PREPARE

-

21

1 longer on my computer because wav. files take so much room. 2 0. So you have a secondary storage system? 3 A, Mm-hmm. yes. 4 0, How long do you maintain the audio files? 5 A. Uhm, well, they're there but they are not synced, so. 6 0. What does sync mean? 7 A. They are not synced to the notes. So they real y 8 don't exi st, they' re j ust there. I 0. Now once you create a transcript at the request of an 10 individual, whether it is an attorney or anyone else, what do 11 you do with that transcript? 12 A, I print it out. 13 0. What do you do? Is it on a computer where you can 14 save it? 15 A. It is on the computer. I wjll put it on the computer, 16 I will take the steno notes and the audio file and transcribe 17 it, which syncs the aud'io notes. 0nce I ed'it the transcript 18 with the audio notes I take the file out and I print the 19 transcript, I put on the title page and the certjficate, and 20 then it's there untjl I remove it from the computer. 21 0. How long do you normally keep the transcript? 22 A. 0n my computer? 23 o. yes. 24 A. The end of the month. If I don't clear off my
1

27

DAILY COPY
1

PREPAREL
of the huge amounts

22

2 3

of wav. files. fi
I es?

corliputer every month

it

wourd crash because

THE COURT:

4
5
b

Let me inter-rupt. Huge amount of what

THE WITNESS:

A. e.

7

THE C0URT: Okay.

Wav, w_a_v. That,s
Once you have

the audio.

I
1A
11

B

12 13

14
15 16

software does not keep

sure that 'it is correct, so it's fert it,s not needed anymore. The

cleared and placed the transcript you created into your backup system what happens to the original raw data, jncruding the wav. fires? THE WITNESS: A. The wav. files djsappear, Because this is just what software does, it doesn,t keep it any 10nger^' It's much easier to keep a steno f.ire which is very small and a transcript file which is very small, and I have already used the aud'io to go over the transcript to make

MR. PODLASEK:

17
18 19
2A
21

that you have ident'fied, did you use the audio portion of that transcript to prepare this document? that time d"id you have occasion to listen to the judge speaking on that tape?
And during

during the time period that you created this June 19, 200g transcript invorving Miss Mel0ngo and the
Now

0'

it.

cases

22 23 24

A, 0'

yes, I did.

A.

yes, I

d.id.

aa L/

DAI LY COPY

PREPARE
Ii

23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

attorney, |\4r. Chevl i n ,

0.

D'id you have occasi on
speaki ng?

to

sten

to the state's

A. 0. A. 0.

Yes,
Yes.

I

did.

And Mr. Flood?
And what about

the defendant? Did the defendant

speak

on the tape?

in point of fact, I believe that you transcribed it, that on page 3, the second to last sentence on that page,
And

A. 0.

Yes, she did.

line

22

A. 0.

Yes.

the defendant says

"I

bond"

in

response

to a
out on, is

question by the court as to what kind

of

bond she was

that correct?"

A. 0.

yes.

Unless

I

only words spoken

is that correct? A, They were. 0, Now you have taken down and transcri bed numerous arraignments during the course of your career, is that correct? A. Yes 0. At anytime have you ever been present when a defendant
,

transcript, those are the by the defendant on that day at that hearing,
am

mlsreading the

ZJ

DAI

LY COPY

PREPARE
or herself?

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1I 20 21 22 23 24

was arraigned without being present himself

A. 0, A. 0. A. 0. A. 0. A. 0.

No.

Typically during an arraignment, explain to the ladies

and gentlemen

of the jury,

who does most

of the talking?
case?

The judge.

of the responding 'in that The representat'ive of the defendant.
And who does most

That would be the defense attorney?
yes.

And
yes.

in this

case

that's Mr, Flood?

after this transcript was recorded and it is p'laced in your files waiting for someone to order it, d'id you have occas'ion to have any conversat'ions wi th the defendant
Now sometime

Miss Annabel Melongo?

A. 0, A. 0. A. 0.
face

yes.
Do you

recall
me

approx'imately when

that took place?

She

called

after
2008

she picked up the

transcript, I

do not remember the dates.
hJould

it

be

in

or

2009?

I'm not sure when she actually ordered the transcript, How many conversation did you have conversat'ions
By telephone.

A.

to face or by telephone?

24

DAI LY COPY

PREPARE

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

0. A. 0. A. o. A. O, A. 0. A. 0. A.

l^Jho

called whom? called
me.

She

And during
Yes, what?

that conversation did anything

occur?

told me that the transcript was incorrect. This is after she's picked up the transcript?
She
Yes,

And when she She said

said incorrect, did you inquire as to
she was present and she

what she meant?

that I put that

wasn't present.

, 'if anyth'ing? I checked the transcript, I checked the aud'io, because it was still on my computer at that time, I called her back and I told her the transcript is correct, and that I wasn't go'ing to change it, and I told her I was trying to be helpfui I told her to call her attorney, Mr. Flood. 0. And did she have any response to those suggestions? A, She started yelling at me and threatening me. MR. ALBUKERK: Objection. Ask that it be
And what di d you respond

stricken,
THE C0URTT

overruled.

MR. PODLASEK:

Q. In what way did the defendant

LJ

DAI LY COPY

PREPARE,

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 1I 20 21 22 23 24

A. She said that 'if I didn't change the transcript that she would file a complaint against me and I said, "WelI , go ahead. " MR. PODLASEK: Q. And was that the end of your fi rst conversation? A. The first conversation dealt with the first reason she
THE WITNESS:

tfrreaten

you?

said that she wasn't present was she said her attorney did not

state on the record that she was present standing there. And I

told her, "Attorneys don't always state that." 0. How did she respond to that? A. That I was still wrong, that the transcript was wrong, and I had to change it. MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I am going to make an objection and ask for a side bar. THE COURT: Your objection is going to be overruled at this time. frJe w'ill address that at a later time.
Go ahead. MR. PODLASEK:

Q,

Was

there a th'i rd conversati

on

that took

place?

try to remember,

A. There was a second conversation. MR. PODLASEK: e. Second, I'ffi sorry. THE I^JITNESS: A. The second conversat-ion, let me
THE WITNESS:

was she said

that the clerk

had her not present

26

DAI LY COPY PREPARE

27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24

so that she was not Present.

0.

And when she

said "the clerk, " did you know who she

was

referring to?

A.
don't

Not rea11y. The Clerk
And when you

of the Court I

assumed,

but I

know.

0.

--

when she

indicated to you that the

have I'm sorry, go ahead. At that time I told her, "It doesn't matter what a clerk says, the court reporter's transcript is what governs." 0, Now, was it the third conversation in which you were 0. A.
Did you
threatened with the complaint?
MR. ALBUKERK:

clerk had her not present did you know what she meant by that? A. Not particularly.

objection to the term threat.

THE C0URT: overru'led. THE WITNESS:

A. I think it was the second. MR, PODLASEK: Q. And did you have three

conversations?

A. Yes. HR, P0DLASEK: Q. What happened on the third
THE wITNESS:

conversation?

that she wasn't present because she was havi ng a cel 1 phone cal 1 at the time that I had llsted on the cover of the transcript.
The

A.

third conversation

she called and said

21

DAI

LY COPY

PREPARE

.
t
No

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

0,

Now

on the cover

of Peopl e's

Exhibi

. 4 f or

identlfication, what time do you indicate that the court
proceedings took place?

A.

Approximately
MR. ALBUKERK: obj ect'ion
THE COURT:

.

obj ecti on

.

Si

de bar.

overruled,

THE WITNESS:

A. Approximately 11 o'clock. MR. P0DLASEK: Q. Was there any other
third conversation
point?
between

conversation on that

A. I'm not sure how it all ended, but she said I have to change the transcript, it's wrong, And she did say that, "Do you reallze I can get the case thrown out because of you?" And I said, "Well, I don't know about that. I said, "The transcript is correct, Please talk to your attorney.
THE WITNESS:

or did it

the two of

you

end

at that

I'm not

changi ng i t.

"

MR. P0DLASEK:

Q,

Do you know what she meant by

getting "the case thrown out?"

A. O. A. 0. A.

Not real'ty,

Did she contact you any further after that time?
Uhm,

no. After that I
Taylor,

gave

the informatjon to

my

supervisor,

Pam

Pam Yes
.

Taylor?

2B

DAI LY COPY PREPARE

.

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

first t'ime, because she might have left a message first and then I called her back and she wasn't there and I left a message, But I did inform her that I checked my notes and the
the

at any point did you ever contact M'iss Melongo and either talk to her or leave her a message? A. I think I left her a message. I'm not sure 'if it was
Now

0,

transcript

was correct.
MR, PODLASEK: Judge,

at this time I
as

would l'ike to

play part of what's been put before the court
People's Exhibit No. 1, which
Miss Meiongo's website on

this

case and

I

would

like to play one of the audio recordings.

it

is a CD-Rom which has

and also the audio recordings in

THE COURT:

People's Exhibit No.
heard

l

It is received. It is part of

was made

part of the stipulat'ion that
Honor.

we

last evening, correct?
MR, P0DLASEK:
THE COURT:

yes, Your

Ail right. Go right ahead. MR. P0DLASEK: I will play an audio recording for you, ask you to listen it, and then ask you if you can identify it. THE IdITNESS: 0kay. Turn i t up,
(hJHEREUP0N,

the

audi

o tape

was

played,
MR, P0DLASEK:

)

Q.

Do you recognize

that

message?

DAI LY COPY PREPARE

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 1f 12 13 14 15
16

rHE WITNESS;

A. Yes, lulR. PODLASEK: Q, Was that your voice on the A. It
sounds

tape?
THE WITNESS:

0.
I eavi

like it,

yes. about

And was

that the

message you were

talking

ng M'iss

Mel ongo?

A. where it
name.

Yes, that the transcript was ready
would be, how much it would

to be picked

uP,

cost,

and

filed

under her
you

0. A.

Is that the only message or conversation that

initiated with Miss Meiongo?

I think so.
MR. P0DLASEK: Judge,

at th'is time we have no
cross,

further questions.
THE

couRT:

At

I right.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

cROSS,EXAMINATION

BY MR. ALBUKERK:

fi rst as a court reporter you have to accurate transcri pts, correct?
Ma'am,

O. A. 0. A. 0.

Good

morning, Pliss Laudien,
produce

Good morning.

of course.
Because

it is an official

record?

30

DAILY COPY

PREPARE.

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

al

I the time? A. Ido. 0. The back of every single transcript that you write in fact has a little attestatjon page saying that you are swearing

n, 0.

It

'is.

And

in fact you swear to the accuracy of those records

to the accuracy? A, The certificate.

0,

Right. If a court reporter were not accurate in the
somethi ng

transcri ption that's
correct?

that

shoul

d be compl ai ned of,

A. 0. A. 0. A. 0. A. 0. A. 0, A. 0.

I

guess, yes,

Now

just for the record we just

heard a tape

recording. That was you leaving a message?
Right.
And you
Yes.

left that message for

my

client?

You di

d not have hi ccups whi I e you were say'ing that?
sound?

Hiccups?

That hiccup No, and

I did not know that she recorded that. Well, you left a message, right? Yes, I did. And the message machine is a recording device,

right?

31

DAI

LY COPY

PREPARE.

33

1 0nce you take it off of the hard drive and back it up to 2 somewhere else, the audio for that transcript disappears because 3 you no l onger need 'it . You've used i t for the transcri pt , so 4 you no longer need it. Transcript files and steno note files 5 are very small; wav. files are huge. The software does not keep 6 it. 7 0. hJell, isn't that just a matter of clicking a few boxes 8 in your computer to change the settings? 9 A. No, the software does not keep it. 10 0. Now the reason court reporters record what goes on 11 what goes in the courtroom is to make sure that they are 12 accurate? 13 A. Yes, it's a tool to help us because we do not control 14 the courtroom, the noise, the things that are going on, yes. 15 0. In fact in some courtrooms al1 they have is a 16 recording, they don't have court reporters? 17 A. That may be. I don't know. 18 0. Now over the years -- you said you have been doing 19 thjs job for over 20 years, r'ight? 20 A. 34. 21 0. 34 years? 22 A. 34. 23 0. And over the years obviously the State's Attorney's 24 office has purchased transcripts from you?

33

DAI LY COPY PREPARE .

34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. 0.
office

Yes.

Can you estimate how much money

the State's Attorney's

has given you

for these transcripts?

A. 0.

No,

It's quite a bit of money, though? l"1R. P0DLASEK: Judge, I am going to object to
THE C0URT: Sustained.

I

cannot.

th'is.
l"lR. ALBUKERK: Judge,
THE C0URT: 0verrut ed.

if I

can have a side bar,

MR, ALBUKERK:

literally if
bui i di

Q. Your office is in the building
The administrative
You are on

you look out the windows over here?
THE WITNESS:

A.

office

ng, yes.
MR. ALBUKERK:

A, 0.
10th

Q.

the fourth floor?

Yes.

And

the State's Attorney's office are on, what, the

A. 0. A. 0. A. 0.

or 11th floor?
They are on a couple floors.

Right. Same building?
Same

building,

And you work
Yes.

with state's attorneys

everyday?

You have no control over what the cl erk does, correct?

34

DAILY COPY

PREPARE
does,

35

2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1

n.
0.
correct?

0f course

not,

And you have no

control over what the judge

A. 0f course not. O. But you know that obviously files
each

are maintained for

A. 0.
time

of the cases?
Supposed'ly.

Court reporters have been known to

make

mistakes from

A. O. A. 0. A.

to time?

I

suppose.

Being a court reporter
yes.
Humans make mistakes?

is a human endeavor?

Yes. MR. ALBUKERK: Nothing
THE C0URT: Any

further.

redirect? you, ma'am. You may step
down.

MR. P0DLASEK: No, Judge.
THE C0URT: Thank

THE wTTNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: You

can proceed with your next

witness, State.

is Pamela Tay'lor. MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, can I have a side bar orif
MR. PODLASEK:

lly next witness

you want

to wait?

3s

DAI LY COPY PREPARb--

115

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11
12

rHE wrrNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: You
wi

can proceed with your next

tness.
MR. PODLASEK: The

State calls James Flood.
could we excuse?

MR, ALBUKERK: Judge,
THE COURT: You l'4R. ALBUKERK:

I

are not going to use luliss Sukalo?
am

not goi ng to

^

THE C0URT: Thank

you, ma'am. You may be excused.
)

(Witness excused.
THE COURT: Good

afternoon,

sir.

Could you please

raise your right hand for
(wITNESS sl^toRN)

me.

3 14 15
1

THE C0URT: Thank

you.

Whenever you

are ready,
Exhibit I-3

state.
JAMEs FLOOD

16

17 18 1I 20 21 22 23 24

called as a witness on behalf of the People, having been first
dul

y sworn, was exam'ined and test'if i ed as fol I ows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
PODLASEK:

BY I"lR.

0. Would you please state your name and spe11 your last name for the record. A. My name is James J. Flood. F L 0 0 D.

ltl

fxBiuit r.g

DAILY COPY PREPARL-

116

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

0, A. 0. A. 0. A. 0.

l4r

,

Fl ood

, what 's your prof ess-ion?

I'm an attorney.
How

long have you been an attorney?

Approximatel

y 32 years.

Drawing your attention

to

June 18th
Melongo?

of 2008.

Were you

representing a

Yes,
How

I

client named Annabel
was.

long had you been representing Miss Melongo prior
you recall?
recal I

to that date, if

A. 0,

I don't
in

. It

was several months, though.

Now,

what capacity were you representing

Mi

ss

Me-longo?

A. 0.

As a criminal defense attorney.
And was l{i ss Mel ongo's case
MR. ALBUKERK:

Judge,

I

am

going

to

make an

objection and ask for a side bar.
THE

C0URT: Let's do a s'ide bar. What's the basis

(sIDE BAR HELD AS FoLLows:)
THE C0URT:

of the objection?

MR. ALBUKERK: Obv'iousl

y we haven't gone i nto i t yet, but I anti ci pate attorney-client privi'lege and would be'invok'ing attorney-client

Attorney-client privilege.

privilege barring any testimony of this witness.
I,lR. P0DLASEK: Barri ng any testi mony?

7]_6

DAI LY COPY PREPARL-

117

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

fHE COURT: Where are we going
MR. PODLASEK:

with it?

I am going to have him in the courtroom and talk about the fact he stood up there. THE COURT; Are you going to be getting into any
conversation that he had w1th M'iss l{elongo?
MR. P0DLASEK: No, none,
THE COURT:

Your objection

will

be

overruled.

You

can proceed.

, the fol l owi ng proceed'ings were resumed and held in open court 'in the presence of the jury:) THE C0URT: The objection will be overruled. You
(hJHEREUP0N

can pnoceed.
MR. PODLASEK:

handled?

llJas

it 'in this

Q.

Where was

the case being

courtroom

or

one

of the suburban
courthouse before

courthouses?
THE WITNESS:

A. It Q.

was

in this

Judge James Schreier.
MR. P0DLASEK: Do you have any independent
2008?

recollection of the date June 18,
THE WITNESS:

but I have rev'iewed

A. Not independent recollection,
were abl e to

some
.

of the documents that

refresh my recol I ecti on

MR. PODLASEK: Judge,

I

am

going

to

approach the

771

DAI LY C0PY PREPART-',

118

1 2 3

witness. I will ask you to look at what's previously been marked as People's Exh'ibit No. 4 for jdentif icatjon purposes
take a
moment

and

to review that.
(t,rli

4 5 6
7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2A 21
{o *l',u{ *".

tness rev-iewi ng exhi b'it.

MR. ALBUKERK: what exhi bi l',lR. PODLASEK:

No. 4. That's the transcript.

t

'is that?

)

0.
goJng on

Does

that refresh your recollection

as

o. *i-,"r" you were that *o.ningi

THE wITNESS:

A. yes. MR. PODLASEK: Q. Now, on page 2 of that

transcript you are addressing the court, fo1lowing the words, "Good morning, Your Honor. James Flood, F L 0 0 D, on behalf of Mjss Melongo, Your Honor." You were addressing Judge Schreier

22
23 24

at that time? A. Yes, I was, 0. And the next sentence was, this is your statement, "This morning I understand they reindicted my c'lient and the new conrplajnt js before you for arraignment." Had you anticipated an arraignment that morning? A. Yes, i did. 0. And did you know about the reind'ictment?

A.

yes

.

0. A.

Prior to that date? Yes, I did know about the re'indictment prior to that

118

DAI LY COPY PREPARL

-

1

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2A 21 22 23 24

date,

0. A. 0. A. 0. A. 0. A. 0. A. 0. A. 0. A.

You had been tendered

transcripts prior to that day of

the Grand Jury?

I

believe

I

was.

Now,

did you proceed with the arraignment on that date

on the reindicted case?

Yes,
And

I

did.
was case 0B CR 10502?

that

That's what's indi cated, yes.
And

the prior case you were representing Miss

Melongo

on was 07 CR A2341,

is that correct?

That's correct.

At the time that you were proceeding on the

arraignment was your
How many

client present in court? To the best of my recollection, yes, she was.
arraignments have you done over the course of

your career?
Between my time as

a prosecutor and defense attorney,
have you ever

probably several thousand.
And

to the best of your recollection,

done an arraignment without

the defendant present either as a

prosecutor or as a defense attorney?

Yes, but only where

defense attorney where

I

I

was given

the authority as a

was given

the express authority to

119

DAI

LY COPY PREPARE-

124

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

waive the presence

of

my

client.

0' A.

And

you put i nto the record?

at the time do you have any specia'l language that
would indicate

for the record my cTient is not present; however, I received permission to represent that person without their presence jn court. 0' A. 0.
You have had

Yes. I

yes, I

a chance to read this transcript through?

have.

Is there anything in this transcript that indicates that you were representing Miss Melongo at an arratgnment
without her being present that
day?

A, Nothing I can see, no. 0. Point of fact rower down you enter a plea of not gui 1ty and i f we go to page 3, line 22 actua'I1y, 1et's go to line 17. The court has a question, "There was some alleged deficiencies in the first indictment that counsel talks about
07 nolle pros case superceded by 08-10502." Next statement js,
"D'id she have a cash bond on

out on?" It's not you that answers but rather the defendant
answers,

that or what kind of

bond was she
who

A.
hearsay.

"I boRd," is that correct? Yes. I speci f -ical l y don't
MR. ALBUKERK:

remember

Objection, your Honor. This is

THE C0URT:

0verruted.

120

DAILY COPY

PREPARTspeci f i

121

2 3 4 5 6 7 B

1

THE WITNESS:

A. I

don't

cal'ly remember

her saying
and

I

at that time. MR. P0DLASEK: Q. In point of fact, the court ends it by dismissing the 07-case and giving it a date of Juiy 16th of 'oB, is that correct? THE WITNESS: A. That's correct. MR. P0DLASEK: I have no further questions, Judge' I don't think it
was my response
THE

that;

however, there was a discuss'ion

of the I

bond

couRT: cross.
CROSS- EMMINATION

10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

BY MR. ALBUKERK:

0. A. 0.
di

Mr. Flood, do you still have a copy of the June 1B,

2008, transcript

in front of you, correct?
you could take a look

Yes,

I do. All right. If

at

page

2.

What

d you ca1 1 th'is

exhi bi t?

MR, PODLASEK: 4.

Q. This is State's Exhibit 4 for the record and for everyone else. If you could take a look at page 2, Iine 5. Strike that. Line 3. It says, "Good morning, Your Honor. James Flood on behalf of luliss Meiongo, Your Honor. This morning I understand they rejndicted my ciient and the new complaint is before you for arra-ignment." Is that what that
MR. ALBUKERK:

1a-l LLL

DAILY COPY

PREPAREu
,

122

1

says?

2 THE ITJITNESS : A. yes 3 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. So according to that statement, 4 the arraignment occurred excuse me, the re-indjctment occurred 5 that morning, according to that statement? 6 A. That wouldn't be my reading of that statement. It was 7my 8 0. f'm not asking what your reading of it is. I am I asking if that's what it says. 10 A. That'swhatitsays,yes. 11 0. Thank you. But then later on it says, and thjs js the 12 same page line 12, "We did have something come in the mail on 13 the case, it was a Grand Jury transcript." All right? 14 A. yes. 15 0. Al I ri ght . if a person had been indi cted that morn'ing 16 there is no way that 'it could have been sent in the mail to you 17 that day, right? 1I A. That's correct. 1I 0. So somethi ng 's wrong w'ith that transcri pt , ri ght? 20 lt's not accurate? 21 THE COURT: Counsel, be more specific. 22 MR. ALBUKERK: So in other words if the person 23 says the person got i ndi cted that morn"ing and there 'is an 24 indication that the Grand Jury transcript from that indictment

L22

DAILY COPY

PREPARE.
morning?

123

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1I 20 21 22 23 24
'1

got sent in the mail that

same

day, you can't receive something

in the mail when the th'ing occurred that
MR. PoDLASEK: Judge,

I
.

have an objection

to this.

Counsel i s

mi

sread'ing the transcri pt
THE COURT:

Overruled. Counsel on the stand, sir,

you can answer how you interpret
THEWITNESS:

that transcript.

A. Look'ingatline6itsays,"This morning I understand they reindicted my ciient." My statement there meant that that morning I was under the understanding that
they rej ndi cted
my cl i ent
.

HR. ALBUKERK:

it, it

Q. Right,
No,

But the way you phrased
morn'ing?

seems

that the indictment occurred that
THE WITNESS:

morning I understand";

it doesn't. I said, "This in other words, I understood at that A.
my

point that they had reindicted
MR. ALBUKERK:

client, client,

Q.

Now, you know my

correct?

A. 0. A. 0. A. 0.

Yes,

She used
Yes.

to be your client?
'is
f rom Cameroon? know she was

You know she

If that's the country she is from. I
in Africa.

from a country over Far pi ace?

123

DAILY COPY

PREPARTwi

124

1
2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

a.
0.

Yes.

You know

that she 'is not f ami I i ar

th the I aws of the

Un'ited States

of Ameri ca? A. I can't really say that. I don't know. 0. Well, you know that she is not familiar with justice system the way that you are?
THE COURT: You mean

our

as a 'lawyer?

MR. ALBUKERK: As
THE WITNESS:

a lawyer or even as a 'layperson.

A. Well, as a lawyer I don't think Q.
Now, Mr. Flood, you use e-mail,

she has a ful

I

understandi ng, no.
MR. ALBUKERK:

correct?
THE WITNESS:

A. Sometimes, yes. MR. ALBUKERK: Q. And your e-mail address is
a side bar
on

MR. PODLASEK: Judge, could we have

17 19 20
18

th-is,

pl ease.
THE

couRT: okay.
{srDE BAR HELD AS FoLLows:)

THE

couRT: okay.

21 22 23 24

MR. P0DLASEK: Judge, these

are e-mails

between

Mr. Flood and Melongo we received them they were actually part

of a motion at

that was put in public record. question to me is whether we were going to get into
one point

Your

724

DAILY COPY

PREPARE-

125

1 conversations with Mr. Flood and lvliss Melongo. I said no; 2 however, if counsel opens this door I am going toinsist that we 3 be al I owed to put thi s e-mai I 'in. 4 THE CoURT: Is this the one you are getting ,in? 5 MR. ALBUKERK: yeah. Specifically let me take 6 a look at it. He, Flood, indicates, that there js nothing wrong 7 wjth her being present in court. I got to find it here, but he 8 basically says I did nothjng wrong, you not having her there 9 MR. PODLASEK: But he is not teliing her she 10 wasn't there. 11 THE COURT: Here is rny ruling. If you open the 12 door and get into those communicat'ions with her, and certainly 13 the State's e-mail is more than relevant, dated Friday, 14 December 18, '09, where she is apologizing for making 15 accusatjons against him, et cetera. 16 HR. ALBUKERK: Judge, that has no relevance to the 17 case. 18 MR. PODLASEK: Absot utel y i t does . Mr, Ft ood 19 understands it to mean that she had made a mistake, she didn't 20 understand what she was doing, or she had basically lied to him. 21 One of the three. So we are going to get jnto a lot more stuff 22 than you really want to get into here. 23 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, there is no relevance to 24 that at al.

DAI LY COPY PREPARL_
1

126

l-HE COURT: Let

2 3

If

's not argue.

That

's

my ru"l i ng.

you are goi ng

to

argue about these e-mai I s

that are dated

December

4
5

file, et cetera.

8th of 2009, he i s tal ki ng about whether he has the
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge,

6

is the main thing, it's all of her allegat'ions of
there.
THE COURT: You

a little further

down here

how she wasn't

I I
10
11

7

into the first, the longer e-mail, and then there is another one talks about her,
would get

yet she forgot about the clerk docket, no mention of

12 13 14 15
16

17
18

19

20
21

22 23

24

to say that arraigning her without her knowledge was proper, or, I don't think that arrajgning her without her knowledge was proper. She ci tes const'itut'ion , tal ki ng about wai ver, then she apol ogi zes on December 18th for some accusat-ion made last week. could be the same one. I don't know if she is backing off. That will be for the jury to determ'ine. My bottom line: If you get into the e-mai1s, it's up to you, and jf he chooses I will allow him to do it on redirect. l\,lR. P0DLASEK: How much leeway am I going to have? THE C0URT: What else went on? All I have is that memo. I am not privy to the rest of the case. MR. PODLASEK: She was making accusations of the competency of him as an attorney. She was going back and forth
arraignment; and then she does another note
him

to

L26

DAILY COPY

PREPARL-

127

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1I 20 21 22 23 24

at the arraignment. I want to ask him, Did she ever ask you to nove this througlt federal court? I want to go through the whole thing. THE C0URT: I think that would be relevant 'if we get into it. MR. ALBUKERK: I can ask him about these THE COURT: Hold on. f,ihen we are at s-ide bar, please direct your comments to me not to each other. MR. P0DLASEK: luly suggestion would be to ask a simple question, Did you ever te17 your client that'I arraigned
saying she wasn't there you withaut your presence?
MR. ALBUKERK:
I

just do that. THE COURT: I won't tel-l you how to do your cause. I am just telling you, if you go into the e-mail I will allow the State to do that. It's up to you how you want to handle
Right I'll that.
(WHEREUP0N,

the following proceedings

were resumed
presence
THE COURT: Go

in

open court
)

in

the

of the j urors:

ahead, counsel,

Q. Mr. Flood, your cl'ient, Miss Melongo, said to you at one time that she didn't think jt was appropriate that she was arraigned Strike that. At one point Miss Melongo said to you that
MR. ALBUKERK:

I21

DAI LY COPY PREPAREU

128

1 2 3 4 5 6
7

didn't indicate that she had ever been arraigned. Did she ever indicate that to you? THE WITNESS: A. Somethjng to that effect, yes.
tfre Clerk's records
MR. ALBUKERK: Noth-ing
THE CoURT: Any

further.
Judge.

redirect?

MR. P0DLASEK:

Just briefiy,

B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PODLASEK:

0.

Mr. Flood, did you arraign your client,

Annabel

Melongo, on June 18, 200B without her being present 'in court

before Judge Schreier?
THE WITNESS:

A.

No,

I did not.
No

She was

in

court.
MR. P0DLASEK: Thank

you.

further questions.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

17
BY MR.
ALBUKERK:

16

RECRoss-EXAMTNATToN

Earlier you said that th'is recollection, right?

0.

was

to the best of

your

A. 0.

yes. And

the reason your recollection was refreshed

was

because you looked

A.

at the

That was part

of it,

June 18, 2008 transcript, right?
yes.

L2B

DAILY COPY

PREPARE-

129

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1I 20 21 22 23 24

A. A.

What other documents

did you use to refresh your

recol lection?

that I received from iliss Melongo and received an e-mall from her where after she
went back through the e-mails

I

first made the inquiry 0. I will make an objection and ask that the answer be
Judge.
THE COURT:

stricken,

Well, the answer

will stand. He said
else he looked at

he also refreshed
and so he

e-mails.

You asked him what

told you.

Nothing further?

MR. ALBUKERK: Nothing
THE C0URT: Thank

further.

you,

sir.

You may step down.

You can proceed, State.
MR. P0DLASEK: The

State at this time has no

further witnesses and we would rest.
(SIDE BAR HELD AS FoLLows:)
MR. PODLASEK:

State, after formal admission of

your exhibits
rested.

let's

take a break for the
Judge,

jury.

State

has

MR. ALBUKERK:

directed

verdict.

I

have a motion

to

make

for

Judge, the State's burden

of proof is

beyond

a reasonable doubt and they have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that my c'llent did not have a reasonable susp'icion that cri minal acti vi ty was 'in f act afoot or cri mi nal acti vi ty, that

1?O

DAI LY COPY

PREPARE,
"i

1

30

1 of Pamel a Taylor, had in fact occurred. l{hat the State has 2 proven, what the state has shown over and over agai n, s that 3 Annabel Melongo may have been arraigned, but that's not the 4 i ssue. The State has m'i ssed the i ssue throughout thei r enti re 5 case' What they needed to show js that my ci'ient didn't have a 6 reasonable suspicion that the person she recorded, pam Taylor, 7 wasn't engaged in some criminal activity. That's the issue and B they kept missing it, I rHE C0URT: AtI right. Looking at the evidence in 10 the light most favorable to the state, which is the motjon, 11 which is the standard, rather, for ruling on a motjon for 12 directed finding, it is going to be respectful]y denied. The 13 transcript indicates that the defendant was there. So that's 'if 14 she was there, then she certainly would not have had any kjnd of 15 reasonable belief that the transcript was be'ing falsifjed, So I 16 think jt's ultimately an issue for the jury and there is more 17 than enough evjdence at this point to let it go to the jury. Do 18 you want to proceed wjth any witnesses? 19 MR. ALBUKERK: I do, I have Dana Depooter and 2a want to read some, at least -- weil, we are going to enter 21 THE COURT: How are you going to handle this blog? 22 r see a copy of the blog, so I don't have to stop. Have the 23 parties agreed to handle this? 24 MR. PODLASEK: We haven't agreed how to handle

130

DAI
1

LY COPY PREPARE-

131

2 3

this. It's on the disc obvious"ly. we have a copy we made, which is called the chicago courthouse, which ouilines everything we want to talk about when r use ,it in closing
argument.
MR. ALBUKERK:

4
5 b 7

I

would be

using-it in closing

argument as wel I

.

I
11

8

to the jury that for

MR. PODLASEK: What

we provide a

disc and r

I

suggest

will

is

we make an

offer

provide my clerk

and can go back there

10

them on a computer

wjth l"lr. Albukerk's associate and play it

copies

for

if

they want

to compare. we made enough to
hand

everybody.
IHE C0URT: My thought woutd be

12 13 14 15 16 17
1B

it back and we can also make arrangements if they see the disc, what else is on the disc besides anything in
copies and send
here? l'{R. ALBUKERK: Wel I

out the

All the documents on the case.
THE C0URT:

,

'it ' s a I of more documents

.

19
2A
21

tell them how to use'it and set that up 1ater, Mark it as an exhjbit. It will be an agreement that it's an accurate exhibjt as part of
Well, we'll have to
People's No. 1.

22 23

24

I thought we could call it 1A. THE COURT: That's fine. You call your witness and put in whatever you put in, then I will recess the jury and
MR. PODLASEK:

131

DAILY COPY

PREPAREwill testify.

132

2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11
12
1

t

have a discussion

with

Melongo whether she

MR. ALBUKERK:

That's fine. the following proceedings

(WHEREUPON,

were resumed
presence

in open court in the

of the jury:) THE C0URT: The State has rested their case in chief, so the defense is going to proceed with their case. Ma'am, if you want to come up here behind the court reporter. Before you sit down I will ask you to piease face me and raise your right hand.
(wrrNESS
stnloRN)

Exhibit I-4
DANA DepoorER

14 15 16 17 18 19 2A 21 22 23 24

3

called as a witness on behalf of the Peop'le, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIREcT
BY MR. ALBUKERK:
EXAMTNATToN

0. Ma'am, would you state your name for the record. A. Dana DePooter. 0. Ma'am, are you currently employed? A. Yes, I am. O. What do you do? A. I am a special agent with the FBL O. All right. And is one of your duties anyway taking

L32

OHut

f,f

DAILY COPY

PREPAREU

13s

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

complaints from the public?

A. 0.
Melongo?

yes,

Did you ever meet with or speak with an Annabel
Yes

A. 0. A,
name

,I

d-id.

And

did you ever rece'ive an e-mail from Miss Meiongo?
.

Yes, several
THE

C0URT: Ma'am, can

for us, please.
THEWITNESS:

I

have you speI1 your last

DEcapitalp00TER,

THE couRT REPoRTER: Thank you.

i think I am up to Defense Exhibjt No. 2, is that what we are up to? I'll call it Defense
MR. ALBUKERK:

Exhibit

2.

0.
an e-mai1 you rece'ived?

Hand'i

ng you

Def

ense

Exh

j bi

t 2 . Is that

THE WITNESS:

A. YeS , t .is MR. ALBUKERK: Q. Is that a true and accurate
J
.

copy

of the e-mai1 that you received?
THE WITNESS:

wi

th Mi ss Me'longo i n person?

0.

A.

Yes,

it

appears

to be.

Yes.

You said you had some

discuss'ion. Did you ever meet

A. 0.

Yes,

I

did.

So you recognize her here today?

..4

133

DAILY COPY

PREPAREu
Miss Melongo here at

134

1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15
1

n. 0. A.
0. A. 0.

Uhm, yes.

And
e?

that's

my

client sitting,

counsel tabl

yes. And she complained and

transcript here at 26th
Thank you.

to you about the falsification of
.

a

California, correct?

In thi s e-ma.i I , yes, she di d

I ask that this be published to the jury,
THE COURT: Any

objectjon?

MR. PODLASEK: Judge,

I

would

like a chance to I'll allow

cross-examine.
THE

C0URT: Following cross-examination

it to be publjshed.
MR. ALBUKERK: Nothing
THE

17 1B 1I
20
21

6

further.

couRT: cross.

Judge, I'm
here.

just trying to obtain a copy of this

rHE couRT: Fine.

22 23

24

134

DAILY COPY

PREPARE-

135

1 SRoss-EXAMINATToN 2 BY MR. PODLASEK: 3 0. Had Miss Melongo ever complained to you prior to this 4 event transcri pts bei ng changed? 5 A. prior to this e-mail? 6 o. Yes. 7 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, objection. Assumes facts 8 not in evidence. I fHE C0URT: 0verruted. 10 THE WITNESS: A. This e-mail was the first that I 11 recall 12 MR. P0DLASEK: e. How long had you been in 13 communi cat'ion wi th l4i ss Mei ongo? 14 THEWITNESS: A. Irealiyamnotcerta.in. It 15 would depend on the e-mails that I had turned over. The dates 16 of the e-mails that were turned over. 17 MR. PODLASEK: e. Welt, how did you first become 18 aware of Miss Melongo? 19 A. she made a compiaint to the FBI office and the 20 complaint was assigned to me. 21 0. How are compl a'ints made to the FBI off i ce normai 1y? 22 A. They could be through walk ins or phone calls. 23 0. What about e-mails? Do you have a hotline e-ma-ils? 24 A. As far as ilm aware, most of our complaints come

135

DAILY COPY PREPARE-

136

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1I 20 21 22 23 24

through telephone or walks ins.

first contact with Miss Melongo was it telephonically or in person? A. I met with her in person. 0. Did you meet with her at FBI headquarters? A. yes. 0. And was that in regard to the forged transcripts? A. The information that she provided at that time was
so your
not.

0'

that she provided to me was not exactly the information that was in this e-mail at the time.
The information
How was

0. A.

So'it

had

to nothing to

do

with her court

cases?

0,
resolved?

this e-ma'il resolved? 0r

has

it

been

A. 0. A.

I

am

not authorized to answer that.

The e-mail

itself

says another transcript was changed.
changed?

Did she ever tell you what transcript had been
Whatever have regardi ng these transcri pts.

is in this e-mail is all the'information I

0. So this is where it ended? A. The e-ma'ils I turned over all of the e-mails. If this was the last e-ma'il I turned over, then that's the last one. I don't know the date. A. The date on this e-mail is Friday, December l8th of

135

DAILY COPY

PREPARE-

137

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1I 20 21 22 24

1 2

2oog,

A.
0. A. 0. A. 0,

is that correct?
Yes.

And

in that e-mail t4iss Melongo references

taping

conversat i ons

, 'i s that correct?
the FBI authorized her to tape those
not authorized to answer that question.

Yes. Had

conversat'ions?

I

am

to move to strike as nonresponsive the last five questions from this witness, and in fact I will move to strike all of her testimony, THE C0URT: Well, your move to strike all testimony is denied. I will instruct the w'itness to answer the quest'ion which sai d wi th respect to the tapi ng , speci f i cal 1y of Pam Taylor, and you can provide the dates s'ince you have to have
Judge,
am go'ing

I

them,
speci

I

want

to know if that was authorized by the FBI, those
dates

now. I will order her to answer that quest'ion. Just phrase it appropriately with the right dates,
MR. PODLASEK:

fi c three

.

Peri od , Nothi ng

further,

nothj ng ongoi ng

Q.

Did you authorize Annabel

23

to tape conversat'ions with Pamela Taylor, the Cook County Court Reporters office, on or about December 14th of
Melongo
2ooe? THE WITNESS:

A.

Did I authorize her to do that?

IJ

I

DAI
1

LY COPY

PREPARE-

1

38

MR. PODLASEK:

Q. Did you or the FBI? You are an I
speak

2 3 4 5 6 7

FBI agent.
THE WITNESS: THE COURT:

Your Honor, may
am

with

you?

No. I

ordering you to answer the

question. specificaliy tailored to the December 14th, pamela
Taylor conversat'ions, that's the only thing
moment.

at issue at this

I
11

8

A. To my knowledge, no. MR. P0DLASEK: Q. So the FBI did not, to your
IHE WITNESS:
knowl edge?

10

12 13

A. To my knowledge, ho. MR. PODLASEK: Q. Did you authorjze the recording
IHE WITNESS:

of a conversation
2009?

between Annabel Melongo and Pamela Taylor,

14
15 16 17 18 19

Cook County Court Reporters

office, on or about December 1Sth of
.

A. No f"iR. PODLASEK: Q. To the best of your^ knowledge, did you authorize a recordjng of a conversatjon between Pamela Tayior and Annabel l"lelongo on or about December 16th of 20A9?
THE I,{ITNESS: THE WITNESS:

20
21

A.

No,

I

had no knowledge.
quest'ions
.

f"lR. P0DLASEK: No
THE COURT:

further

22 23

Anything e'lse based strictly on that?

24

138

DAI LY COPY

PREPARL-

1

39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. ALBUKERK:

0.

The complaint was

that

my client had

a

reasonable

suspicion that criminal activity was going on

in that a court

transcript had been altered?

A. 0. A.

According Right.

to the e-mail?

That 'is what

it

stated in the e-mai'l

.

MR. ALBUKERK: Thank
THE COURT: Thank

you.

Nothing further,
down.

you, ma'am. You may step

Defense, you may pubiish the e-mail.
MR. ALBUKERK:

I would. Also, Judge, may I
Thank you, ma'am.
)

excuse

the witness?
THE COURT:

Yes.

(Witness excused.
MR. PODLASEK: Judge, we

object to the publishing
me

of th'is

e-mai

I

.

THE C0URT:

if

0verruled, Counsel, let

ask you,

you don't have a copy

for

everybody then

into the record so we don't
read the paragraph.

have

to wait for fourteen people to

I

ask you read

it

MR, ALBUKERK:

Al1

right.

"From Annabel Melongo

to

Dana.DePooterGIC.FBLgov.

Date: Friday, December 18, 2009,

7:16

a.m. Subject:

Forged court transcript.

1?O

DAILY COPY

PREPARE,

14A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 12 13 14 '15 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1

I can't heip but come back, unlike the last time when my hearing transcripts were changed and I had nothing to prove it. Th'is time another transcript was changed and I have strong probable cause showing that something went wrong or something is wrong. I was never arra'igned for the case against me. when I became aware of that I got the clerk, the docket, and the transcri pt. The cl erk and the docket don't mention an arraignment. The only thing that does is the transcript. I then called the court reporter office and I taped al I the conversat'ions. To I isten to them, please go to the
"Dear Dana:

website under the Chicago Courthouse subsection and start

B, '0g. The reason I'm contacting you is to know if I have to add this comp'laint to my existing one olif I should file a new one, If so, should I have to come there and file a complaint or should I do it through the website like I d'id the l ast ti me? Thanks . ', Defense Exhi bi t No. 2. THE C0URT: Ladies and gentlemen, at this time I am going to take a short break. There is a coup'le things I have to address w'ith the attorneys outside your presence and I will be brjnging you back shortly. All rise for the jurors. (WHEREUPON, the jury exited the
reading from December
courtroom.
THE COURT:
)

Counsel, do you have any other

witnesses or exhibits you

will be presenting?

L4A

case: 1:'10-cv-05235 oocument#: 19 Filed: o9logt10 page r of 15 pagelD #:16g
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DTYISION
THE AMERICAN CIVL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS,

ExHirir S
10

Exhibit J

Plaintifl
vs.

c

5235

Honorable Judge Suzanne B. Conlon

ANITA ALVAREZ,
Defendant-

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS TIIE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Defendant, Awne ALveREZ, State's Attomey

of

Cook County ("State's Attorney

Alvatez" or the "State's Attorney"), through her assistants, PATRTCK T. DruscorI-, JR., paur A.

CasrtctIoNE, and Javss C. Puttos, pursuant to Rules 12(bX1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, moves this Honorable Court to dismiss all claims. In support of this motion, Defendant state as follows:

INTRODUCTION
On August 19, 2010, plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois ("ACLIJ" or

"Plaintiff') filed its Complaint (hereinafter, the "Complaint" or "Compl.') against

State's

Attorney Alvarcz seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from prosecution under the Illinois
Eavesdropping Act, 720 ILCS

5ll4 {"tbe Act").

,See

Compl. !} 1. Plaintiff alleges that it intends

to undertake a program of monitoring police activity, by means of audio recording police
officers, without consent, while the officers are engaged in public duties in a public place,
speaking at volume audible to the human ear, and the manner of recording is "otherwise lawful."

Compl. u 3. Plaintiff alleges that it has a right under the First Amendment to engage in such
conduct, citing various principles such as the right to free speech, to petition govemment for

HCo

i

Case: 1.10-cv-05235 r-.rocument #: 19 Filed: 09ngl10 Pagc _ of 1S pagelD #:16g

redress

of injuries and of afree press. Compl, fln9-22. Plaintiff

contends that the

Act inhibits
audio

these First Amendment rights because the

Act will subject Plaintiff to prosecution for

recording police offi cers. Compl.

1l1l 23

-34.

STANDARD OF REVIEW In deciding a Rule 12(bX1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court may properly look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the Complaint and view
whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue

to

determine whether subject rnatter

jurisdiction exists. Capitol Leasing Co. v. F,D.I.C.,999 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir. 1993). Under
Rule 12(b)(6) a claim may be dismissed if, as a matter of law, "it is clear that no relief could be
granted under any set

of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Neitzke

v.

Williams,490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (.qttoting Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69,

73

(1984)). While a district court will dismiss a complaint when no relief can be granted under a set

of facts consistent with the allegations, the court should not strain to find inferences not plainly
apparent from the face of the complaint. Hishon,467 U.S. at73.

The pleading standard in Rule 8 does not require more than detailed factual allegations,

but it demands more than an unadomed, the-defendant-unlawful1y-harmed-me accusatian. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A "plaintiff s obligation to provide the
'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. A complaint will not suffice
tenders naked assertions devoid 1937, t949 (2008).

if it

of further factual

enhancement. Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

1/

Case: 1:10-cv-05235 r-rocument #: 19 Filed: ogl0g/10 Page

-

of 1S pagelD

#l7a

ARGUMENT

I.

PLAINTIFF'LACKS STAI{DING TO BRING A CLAIM FOR INJUNCTTVE RELIEF AG{NST THE STATE'S ATTORNEY.
Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a claim for injunctive relief against the State's

Attorney. Unless a case or controversy is present, no federal coufi has the jurisdiction to decide
whether a federal, state, or local law is constitutional. Golden v. Zwickler,394 U.S. 103, 110

(1969); see slso Alvarez v. Smith,130 S. Ct.576,580 (2009). Standing is "an essential and
unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article ITI." Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). ln order to establish standing for prospective injunctive
relief, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that it is under threat of an actual and imminent injury in
fact. Sunzmers v. Earth Island Institute,129 S. Ct. 1142,1 149 (2009).

A persen need not risk arrest before bringing

a pre-enforcement challenge under the First

Amendment. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705,2717 (2010). Nonetheless,

in order to present

a

justiciable controversy, a party must assert more than a wholly speculative

possibility of criminal consequences. Babbit v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union,442rJ.S.289,
302 (1979). See also Goldhamer v.

Nagode,_

F.3d

_,

2010 U.S. App. LEXIS

18325 (7th

Cir. Septembet 2,2010) (holding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring afaciaL challenge to a
law that did not apply by its terms to their desired conduct).

In Goldhamer, the plaintiff

sought prospective relief: an order enjoining the Ciry of

Chicago from enforcing a provision of Chicago's Municipal Code prohibiting disorderly conduct
on the grounds that the provision violated the First Amendment. The Seventh Circuit recognized

lhat a plaintiffbringing such a challenge "must show that

it has'an intention to engage in a

course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and

fthat] there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder."" Goldhanrcr, 2010 U.S. App.

/,2

Case. 'l:10-cv-05235 rJocument #: 19 Filed: 09109110 Page

- of 15 PagelD #:171
a pre-enforcement

LEXIS 18325 at *12, citing Babbit, 442 IJ,S. at 298. A person who mounts
challenge to a statute that he claims violates his freedom

of

speech need

not show that the

authorities have expressly threatened to prosecute him; however, the statute must cover the
conduct that the person intends to engage rn. Majors v.

Bell,3I7 F.3d719,721 (7th Cir.2003).

Although standing in no way depends on the merits of the Plaintiffs contention, standing
does turn on the nafirre and source of the claim assefted. Bond v. Utreras,585 F.3d

lA6I,

1073

(7th Cir. 2009). Standing requires litigants to establish an injury to an interest that the law
protects when

it is wrongfully invaded and this is quite different from requiring them to establish

a meritorious legal claim.

Id. However, while a litigant need not definitively establish that a

right of his has been infringed, he "must have a colorable clairn to such a right" to satisfy Article

III,Id.
"Ripeness is
a

justiciability doctrine designed to prevent the courts, through avoidance of

premature adjudication, from entangling themselves

in

abstract disagreements."

Nat'l Pcrk

Hospitality Ass'n v. Dep't af Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 (2003). fupeness is related to standing

in that

if

a threatened injury is sufficiently imminent to establish standing, the constitutional

requirements of the ripeness doctrine

will

necessarily be satisfied, Bauer v. Shepard, 634 F.

S,rpp. 2d 912,936 G{.D. Ind. 2009). The difference between an abstract question calling for an

advisory opinion and a ripe "case or controversy" is cne of degree, not discernable by any
precise test. Babbitt,442U.S. at297. To demonstrate ripeness in a pre-enforcement challenge, a

Plaintiff must show that the issues are fit fbr judicial decision and that the Plaintiff will suffer a hardship

if

the court withholds consideration. Metro. Milwaukee Ass'n of Commerce

v.

Milwaukee County,325F.3d879,882 (7th Cir. 2003). Hardship is established if (1) enforcement

is certain, only delayed, or (2) even if the enforcement is not certain, the mere tbreat of fufure

{3

Case: 1:10-cv-0523t rlocument #; 19 Filed: 0gl0gl10 page .r of 15 pagelD #:172

enforcement has a present concrete effect and a later challenge
consequences. Id.

will

cause irremediably adverse

Based upon the allegations

in the Complaint, there are two distinct types of

situations

where Plaintiff intends to audio record the police. In the first, where an ACLU rnember wishes

to audio record eriminal conduct by the police directed tcward him or her, Plaintiff

lacks

standing to bring a facial First Amendment challenge because the Act exempts such recordiag

from criminal liability. In the second, where Plaintiff seeks to audio record unlawful conduct by
the police directed toward some third party,

Plaintiff lacks standing because the allegations in the

Complaint fail to demonstrate a threat of imminent injury.

A.

Plaintiff lacks standine because It is not under threat of an imminent iniury.

Plaintiff and its members are not under threat of an actual and irnminent injury. "The
irreducible constitutional minimum of standing" requires an "injury in fact," which is an invasion

of a legally protected interest which is: (a)

concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or

imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, Lujan,504 U.S. at 560 (citations omitted). "Plaintiffs must demcnstrate a 'personal stake in the outcome' in order to 'assure that concrete adverseness

which sharpens the presentation of issues' necessary for the proper resolution of constitr.rtional
questions." Cityof LosAngelesr,. Lyons,461 U,S.95, 101 (1983), quotingBakeri. Carc,369

U,S. 186" 204 (1962), Abstract injury is not enough. 1d. Plaintiff must show that
sustained or is immediately

it

"has the

in danger of sustaining some direct injury" as the result of

challenged official conduct and the

injwy or threat of injury must be both "real and immediate,"

not "conjecfural" or "hypothetical." Id. at 101-102 (internal citations omitted). For fwo reasons,

ACLU cannot meet this burden.
First, the complaint alleges that some members of the ACLU wish to audio record police misconduct. Compl.
1T1l

18-22. Indeed, Plaintiff aileges that audio recordings can determine

c1

Case: 1:10-cv-05235 rJocument #: 19 Filed: Agl}gll0 Page

- of 15 PagelD #:173
!l 18. Consequently, some

"whether police officers and/or civilians behaved lawfully." Compl.,

of the conduct in which the ACLU's members wish to engage (1.e., the recording, without
consent, of criminal conduct) does not violate the

Act.

See 72A ILCS 5114-3(i)

{2010). Section

14-3(t of the Act exempts from criminal liability the audio recording of a conversation made by
a person who is a party to the conversation under reasonable suspicion that another party to the

conversation is committing, is about to commit, or has comrnitted a criminal offense,

if

there is

reason to believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording.

Id. To

the extent that Plaintiff claims that

it

members wish

to audio record

conversations with a

policeman where the policeman is committing a criminal offense against the ACLU member,

Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring afacial challenge to the Act, as it does not criminaiize
such conduct. Id;, see also Goldhamer,2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18325 at *14-*16. Second, Plaintiff has alleged no facts demonstrating a probabilify

of imminent injury in

situations where its members are not the subject of unlawful behavior by the police. It is sheer
speculation on the part of Plaintiff that its members

will happen onto a confrontation between the

police and third parties. "Although imminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, it
cannot be sffetched beyond its purpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too
speculative for Article
564,

III

purposes - that the injury is certainly impending." Lujan, 504 U.S. at

n.2.

Standing is "substantially more difficult to establish where the plaintiff is not himself

the object of the govemment action or inaction that he challenges. Id. at 561. Imminence has
been stretched beyond its purpose in this instanee.

eg

Case: 1 .10-cv-0523c Document #: 19 Filed: 09/09/10 Page

/ of 15 PagelD #:174

B.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated an actual iniury.

1.

Plaintiffdoes not have a right to non-consensual audio recordings.

Defendant has discovered no court that has recognized a First Amendment right to audio record a conversation. Matherry v. County of Alteglzany,2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24189 (W.D. Pa.

March 76,2}rc) (concluding tliat a First Amendment right to record the police was not clearly
established); Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle,2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37618 (M.D. Pa. May 4,2OA9)

(same). The Seventh Circuit has held United States Constitution does not guarantee the right to
record a public event. Potts v. City of La;fhyette,l21F.3d 1106, 1111 (7th Cir.l997){holding that

a plaintiff did not have a First Amendment right to tape record a public
submits that the act

rally).

Defendant does not

of audio recording a policeman or anyone else is conduct that

implicate the First Amendment and that the Act's prohibition on non-consensual audio
recordings does not violate the First Amendment.

Piaintiff is precluded from audio recording any conversations without consent of all
parties to such conversation, including encounters between law enforcement and citizens. The

Act narrowly restricts the audio recording of conversations; however, this restriction does not
interfere with the right to receive information. It is merely the right to make an audio recording

of

infonnation which

is prohibited. Plaintiff, through its

members, may document any

occulrence or speech

in other manners, according to the law. Nevertheless, in this matter,

Plaintiff is not entitled a right to rccord since precedent has not articulated such a right. See id.
Therefore, Plaintiff cannot show that it will suffer an injury because the law does not recognize
the

Plaintiffs injury

as a constitutional right.

Plaintif?s assertion that the Act violates a constitutional right to receive information
mistakes the nature

of such a right. The Act's prohibition

against the interception

of

any

conversation without consent is firmly grounded in the First Amendment. "Freedom of speech

7

L<

Case: 1:10-cv-0523b rlocument #: 19 Filed: AgngllO Page a of 15 PagelD #:175

presupposes a

willing speaker." l/irginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Yiriginia Citizens Consumer

Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 756 (1976).

If a willing speaker exists, the freedom of speech

protection is afforded "to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both." Id. The

right to receive information t'is an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech and press that
are-

explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution" because "the right to receive ideas follows

ineluctably frorn the sender's First Amendment right to send them." Bd. of Educ., Island Trees
(Jnion Free Sch. Dist Number 26 t,. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 86? (1982)(emphasis original). A

plaintiff has standing to assert First Amendment right to receive speech only if the plaintiff can
demonstrate a

willing speaker. Ind. Right to Life, Inc. v. Shepard,507 F.3d 545, 549 (7th Cir.

2007). The right to willingly speak is superior to the right to receive, and the derivative right to
receive is not triggered until after the speaker voluntarily assents io participate in a conversation.

A willing

speaker also has the right

to restrict the manner in which his speech is delivered,

including being surreptitiously recorded. The Act merely ensures tliat this derivative right to receive does not usurp the speaker's right and preserves
participate in conversations.

all

speakers' rights

to

wi1ling1y

Plaintiff asserts that the right to receive exists without regard to the speaker's intentions,
and that Plaintiffls members will, without consent, audio record police officers engaged in the execution of their official duties. Compl.$ 38. The complaint overlooks a crucial prerequisite in First Amendment jurisprudence: the existence of a willing speaker.

Plaintiff necessarily concedes, through its pleadings, that
conversation

it

intends

to record

the

of an unwilling speaker. Plaintiff has asserted a right to receive without first

establishing a willing speaker. Above all else, Plaintiff intends to record the speech of a police

officer without his or her consent. Plaintiff

s

proposal seeks to elevate the right to receive above

the right to speak -- a proposal which, in effect, tums the First Amendrnent on its head. Plaintiff

.62 a,

Case: 1:10-cv-0523r Document #: 19 Filed: OglO9/10 Page

t

of 15 PagelD #:176

rnay only receive information from a willing speaker, and Plaintiff has no right to receive without this predicate requirement. Because the Plaintiff intends to specifically refrain from
seeking consent of police officers, these officers are not willing speakers. As a consequence,

Plaintiff does not have any constitutionai right to receive any speech of a non-consenting and
unwilling police officer.

2.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it is exposed to denial of its right to petition government.

a real

injury of the

Plaintiff has not pleaded a real and actual inj".y of being denied the right to petition the
govemment for the redress of grievances. Nothing in the Act either explicitly or implicitly prohibits Plaintiff from petitioning the govemment for the redress of any gdevances. At best,

Plaintiff can simply assert that the Act may deprive Plaintiff of only one form of evidence in
support of its grievance

- an audio recording of speech that will, by definition, have been heard

by other witnesses (including the member of Plaintiff who seeks to make the recording).

Initially, Plaintiffs assertion that it will incur such an injury is wholly speculative. In
order to establish the denial of this right, Plaintiff assumes that its members' encounter with the

police will result in a cause of action or complaint regarding the conduct of the targeted police
offrcers. Plaintiffs speculative allegations presume that its members are facing imminent threat

of

misconduct

by officers. These hypothetical allegations are insufficient to establish the

required injury necessary to establish standing. See Lyons,461 U.S. at 101-102.

Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that the right to petition government for redress necessarily
incorporates the right to receive specific evidence or discovery for purposes of its petition. In order for a party to receive discovery or evidentiary information, a willing speaker must exist.

Bond,585 F.3d at 1078. In the absence of

a

willing speaker,

an Article

III

court must dismiss the

action for lack of standing. 1d. As stated, supra, Plaintiff has not established a willing speaker

CA

Case: 1:10-cv-0523- Jocument#: 19 Filed: 0g/Ag/10 Pag- r0 of 15 pagetD #:177
for the conversation it wants to record. Moreover, the Plaintiffs Complaint asserts that the lack

of audio recording evidence will impair the ability to successfully prove a case against

the

govemment by denying the recording of "critical evidence." Compl. 19. Despite the plaintiffls tf assertion, there is no constifutional right to compel the recording of this "critical evidence.,,

Moreover, Plaintifls allegations that

it

cannot is unsupported by the voluminous federal civil

rights litigation against law enforcement and the frequency of success on such claims, without
audio recording by the Plaintiff.

3.

The Act does not prohibit the freedom of press.

The Plaintiff fu*her alleges that the Act prohibits its rights under the Free Press clause

of

the First Amendment. The pr€ss serves as the information-gathering agent of the public, and it
cannot be prevented from reporting what

it

leamed and what the public was entitled to know.

Nixon v. Warner Communications, lnc.,435 U.S. 589, 609 (1978). The First Amendment
generally grants the press no right to information superior to that of the general public. Id. "Ithas generally been held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right

of

special access

to information not available to the public generally," even where nelvs

gathering is hampered,. Pell v. Procunier,4l7 U.S. 817, S33 (i974). The Constitution does not require governnent to accord the press special access to information not shared by members
the public.

of

Id. Morcover, the Constitution does not impose on government the affirmative duty to

make sources of information available to journalists which is not available to members of the

public generally. Id. at 834-35. First, and fatally to this claim, Plaintiff makes no facfual allegations to establish that it
constitutes the 'press" or why

it

would fall under the protection of the Free Press

Clause.

However, assuming arguendo that Plaintiff possesses a right under such Clause, Plaintiffhas not
alleged a violation of such right by the

Act.

Because

Plaintiff, if asserting press privileges, is not

l0

41

Case: 1:10-cv-052c- Jocument#: 19 Filed: 09/09/10 Pag* .r1 of 15 PagelD #:1TB
afforded any greater rights to receive information than that of the general public, the plaintiff is

not entitled to any greater right to audio record than members of the general public. The status of being the "press" adds nothing to the First Amendment analysis in this case. Moreover, the

Act only limits the means of how infonnation may be retained. The Act does not target
restricting press access or rights. The Act's restriction on audio recording applies to everyone, including the press. Therefore, the Act does not prohibit the freedom of the press.

u.
The Younger abstention doctrine prohibits federal interference and requires dismissal of

this lawsuit.In Ex parte Young,209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Court established the doctrine "that
when absolutely necessary for protection of constifutional rights courts of the United States have power to enjoin state officers from instituting criminal actions." Younger v. Harris,401 U.S. 37, 45 {I971). "But this may not be done excepf under extraordinary circumstances where the danger

of irreparable loss is both great and immediate." Id. "Ordinarily, there should be no interference

with such officers" and "[t]he accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state
courts, even though this involves a challenge of the validity of some statute, unless
appears that this course would not afford adequate protection."

it plainly

1d

The threat to the Plaintiffls

federally protected right must be one that cannot be eliminated by his defense against a single criminal prosecuticn . Id. at 46.

Moreover,

"[a] criminal

prosecution under

a

statute regulating expression usually

involves imponderables and contingencies that themselves may inhibit the fulI exercise of First
Amendment Freedoms," but this "chilling effect" should not by itselfjustify federal intervention.

Id. at 50 {quoting Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479,486 (1965). The existence of a "chilling

11

1o

Case: 1 :10-cv-05235 u,rocument #. 19 Filed: 09/Ag/10 Page , z of 15 PagelD #:179

effect," even in the area of First Amendment rights, has never been considered a sufficient basis, in and of itself, for prohibiting state action. Id. at
51.1

Here, Plaintiff expressly seeks to "enjoin defendant the Cook County State's Attomey from prosecuting plaintiff' for engaging in conduct that violates the Cl.,
11

Act.

Compl., Wherefore

B. It is, of course,

axiomatic that selective prosecution of criminal laws could implicate

the Equal Protection Clause. See Wayte v. United States,470 U.S. 598, 608 (1984). Thus, by
asking this Court to enjoin State's Aftorney Alvarez from prosecuting Plaintiff s members who engage

in

conduct that violates the, Plaintiff essentially asks

for an order enjoining

all

prosecutions under

lllinois' Eavesdropping stafute. Indeed, the relief requested in this lawsuit is

an order that would enjoin ongoing, see People v. Drew, 10 CR 4601, and future criminal
prosecutions in State court. The Younger abstention doctrine prohibits the entry of such an order.

Moreover, the Seventh Circuit has recognizedthat the applicability of Younger abstention is contingent on the abilify of a litigant to advance the federal constitutional claims in the federal

lawsuit

in the State forum. See Brunken v. Lance, 807 F.2d 1325, 1331 (?'n Cir.
A key
aspect

1986)

(recognizing that

of

Younger abstention "is that state courts are just as able to
s

enforce federal constitutional rights as federal courts"). The Drew case, referenced in Plaintiff

complaint at

Where a statute does not directly abridge free speech, but while regulating a subject within the State's power, tends to have the incidental effect of inhibiting First Arnendment rights, it is well settled that the statute can be upheld if the effect on speech is minor in relation to the need for control of the conduct and the lack of altemative means for doing so." Id. Although there may be extraordinary circumstances which justifu federal intervention through an injunction, the usual prerequisites to federal intervention require bad faith and harassment. Id. al 53. in this matter, Plaintiff does not show the Cook County State's Attorney has or intends to use the Act in bad faith and in order to harass a class of citizens. Plaintiff identifies a matter currently in the Circuit Court of Cook County, People v. Drew, 10 CR 4601, as an example of a pending prosecution under the Act. Compl. tf 30. Plaintiff does not assert this prosecution is undertaken for harassment purposes or initiated in bad faith. Moreover, the Plaintiff does not allege that ftifure prosecutions will be in bad faith or for harassment purpos€s. Under Younger, the Plaintiff has not identified the extraordinary circumstances which justiff federal invention of the Act.
t2

I

!i 30, illustrates this very point. In fact, Plaintiff

alleges that Drew "moved to

7r

Case: 1:10-cv-0525- rlocument#: 19 Filed: 091A9/10 Pag- r3 of 15 PagelD #:180
dismiss, arguing that the application

of the Act to his audio recording violated the First

Amendment land that] Defendant successfully opposed the motion." Consequently, the Younger abstention doctrine prohibits the entry of an order enjoining
State's Attorney Alvarez from prosecuting Peaple v. Drew or other alleged violations of the Act.

IrI. PLAINTIFF'S CITATION TO CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS IN TIIE ACT ALLOWING THE POLICE TO AUDIORECORD COIWERSATIONS IS
IRRELBVANT.
Plaintiff notes that the Act exempts conversations with
a

civilian who is the occupant of a

police car,'/20 ILCS 5/14-3(hxb), and conversations recorded "simultaneously with the use of
an in-car video camera during traffic and pedestrian stops," 720 ILCS 5/1a-3(a). Compl., $ 26.

For two reasons, these exemptions have no relevance to the present lawsuit.

First, Piaintiff has not filed an equal protection claim and allegations of disparate
treatment in the Act are of no moment. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the police and
the public are not similarly situated. The Fourth Amendment regulates the conduct of the police.

Members of the public, in contrast, are not state actors subject to the constraints imposed by the Constitution.

IV.

THE ACT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL TIME. PLACE. AND MANNER CONSTRAINT.
Assuming, arguendo, that the Act implicates free speech rights, the Act is a valid time,

place, and manner constraint. In order to "sustain a time, place, or manner restriction on First

Amendment activities, the govemment must show that the restriction (1) is justified without
reference to the content

of the regulated speech; (2) is nanowly tailored to serve a significant

governmental interest; and (3) leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of the

information." Potts,121 F.3d at 1111.

First, the Act does not regulate any specific content of speech but rather, prevents the
non-consensual recording

af

speech, regardless

of the content of the conversation at issue.

13

a1

Case: 1:10-cv-0523u document #: 19 Filed: 09/09i10 Pag- r4 of 15 PagelD #:181

Second, the Act is narrowly tailored to fuither the rights of speakers to be recording only

if after

consent is given. The Act protects the speaker's right to privacy by precluding the dissemination

of any utterances which are made without all participants' consent. Third, the Act does not place
constraints on receiving and/or transcribing all

foms of non-consensual communication. For

exarnple, in this case, the Plaintiff may watch and listen to encounters between citizens and police offrcers, and take nctes recording such encounters.

Plaintiff

s

right to receive speech is not absolute. The right of free speech is not absolute
571

at all times and under ai1 circumstances. Chaplinslry v. New Hampslire, 315 U.S. 568,

(1942). The Supreme Court has long recognized that some forms of expression are not entitled to any protection at all under the First Amendment, despite the fact that they could reasonably be thought protected under its literal language. See Roth v. United States,354 U.S. 476 (1957).ln Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308 (1940), the Court stated that "[t]he offense known as
breach of the peace embraces a great variefy of conduct destroying or menacing public order and

tranquility. "It includes not only violent acts but acts and words likely to produce violence in
others."
-Id.

Plaintiff alleges that the Act's application will affect its mission to conduct suveillance
of police officers in their official duties. fire Act's purpose is to protect the rights of the speaker
and their privacy interests; however, assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has a narrow right to audio

record a police officer, the Act further provides a time, place, and manner constraint on this
conduct. Although, the Act protects the privacy and speech of alt participants to a conversation,
an additional protection, as

it applies to police officers, is that the Act allows officers to perform

their tasks without harassment and prevents breach of the peace.

Plaintiffs proposal implicitly stands for the proposition that the furtherance of its First
funendment rights may justifiT harassment or a breach of the peace. Plaintiff represents that it,

14

./3

Case: 1 :10-cv-05235 uocument #. 19 Filed: 09/09/10 Page , 5 of 1 5 PagelD #:182

through its members,

will audio record

encounters between police officers and private cilizens.

However, since neither law enforcement nor members

of the ACLU are clairvoyant, the

predictability of encounters is non-existent without premeditation. Realistically, the ACLU can only achieve its desired goal of recording encounters with police during consensual encounters

(which Plaintiff specifically alleges wili not occur), or through implicating the Fourlh
Amendment that a crime was or

will be committed. Implicitly, Plaintiff

intends to capfure

encounters from start to finish through planned actions which
response pursuant

will provoke a police ofFtcer's
suggests

to the Fourth Amendment. As a result, Plaintiff

that the First

Amendment is not constrained by acts of lawlessness in order to receive, gather, and record the
conduct of police officers.

Altematively, if Plaintiffs proposal represents a goal to audio record chance encounters between police officers and civilians, Plaintiffls proposal

will

disregard those civilian-

participants engaged in the conversation u,ith a police officer. In other words, Plaintiff also
intends to non-consensually audic record these citizens as well. Plaintiffls proposal intrusive effects on these citizens' privacy and speech interests. Respectfully Submitted,

will

have

ANITA ALVAREZ
By: Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr. Donald J. Pechous PaulA. Castiglione Jeffrey S. McCutchan Assistant State's Attorney 500 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 603-5105
/s/ James C. Pullos James C. Pullos ARDC#6275728

State's Attorney of Cook CounfY

15

74{

Sep 15

1

1 O2: 4?p

Craerf ond Cr: Judges OTf i ce 61454441 l4

p.1

Exhibit K
IN THtr CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDiCTAL CIRCUIT CRAWFORP COUNTY. ILLINOIS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

€xfrisih u

\t

No.2009-CF-50

MICHAEL D. ALLISON,
Defendant.
i : :.;.

ORDER ql$ MOTION TO.DECLARE 720 ILCS s/14 In {CONSTITUTIONAL This matter comes on f*r hearing on August iS, 2S11 on &e Motion ro Dismiss

filed April 79,2t1I by defendant Michael D- Allison. The State appars by State's
Attorney, Thomas Wiseman of Robinson, Illinois and Assistaet Attomey General, Eric Levin of Chieago, Illinois. Defendaat Michaei D. Ailison, app€a$ with his counsel,

William A- Sr::rdennan, Brainard law Offices, Charlestorq lllinois. The State filed a
response tc the rnotisn on July 5,

z*l

l.

Deferdant filed a reply to the response on

August 3, 20i

1.

Argrxnent on the Motion to Dismiss begm oa
was continuedto allow the

*I*y 2,2$1i. However, the case

Iliinois Aftorney General the opportunity to intervene since

the motion challenged the constitritionaliry of the Illinais Eavesdropping Statute.

trefendant, Michael D- Allison, received arr ordinance violatian from the City

of

Oblong cotcemirg an alleged abacrdoned vehicle on his prop€rt7. In his encounters with police, city attorney, circuit clark's office and ccurt, it is alleged he altempted to use a

7s

$ep 15 1I SZI4Zp

Crauford Co Judges Office 61S544+1?4

p.2

DS-30 digital recorder to record coaversatisns pertaining to mafiers concerning his alleged ordixance viola:ion. Defendant, Michael D. Allison, was charged in a five-couat informatioa fiied

April

8, 2*09 a}leging the offense of eavesdropping.

All the counts al]ege a viclation of
recorder for the purpse

?20 ILCS 5/14-2 {a) {1} by defendant usiag

a Ds-30 digitd

af

recording conversations without consent betweEn defedaet and (1) Chief Bitl Ack:nan,
law e*forcement offi.cer, while in the performance of his oltcial duties (Cotnt I); (2)

Officer William Rufan law enforcemect offieer, while in &e perforraance of his officiai
duties{Count II); {3} Debbie Philiippe, employee of the Crawford County Circuir Clerk's office{Count IID; (a) Nancy Ulrey and Craig Weber, Oblong Ciry Attomey's

office{count rv}; and {5) Honorabie Kimbara Harrell,
of herafficial duties{Count

a

judge, while in the performaace

$.
it

Defendant contends the lllinois Eavesdropping Statute is vaid for vagueness, violates due prrocess, and it violates his First Amendmeat righfs.

"AII statutes are presumed ccastit-*ional and the party challengiag &e
consitutionality of
a st*tute has the bwden of clearly establishing that

it vi*lates the

constitution-'Tbe People ofthe State of lilinois v. Clar:dia Madrisal lll.Sup.Ct. Docker
114194 {2011}, citing also, People v. Cqroenrer^ zZt IU,

2|23A,?67 e}ASr.

YAGUENESS In Peaple v. Mgrchel

9i lll. App.3d 285, 291 i5d' Disr. l9g0) &e csurt sta:ted:

"The irnfcrtant consideratior$ in deterrninlng whethsr a statute is void for being and iadefinite include {1), whether&e provisicns grves reasonable guidance to tlre average perscn; and {2} whedrer it is desigrred to avoid arbinary and dissriminatory enforeement- {citatian osifted} Impassible standards of spocificity are trot required and courts will assune absent contrary legisiative i*tent, that rlre words of the stalute have their ordinary an* properly und.extaod
vagr.re

7c

Sep i5 11 O?:43p

Cra*fard Co Judges Offioe

ALAE444L74

p.3

rl$anings, (citation orniited) In addition to the language used consideration is given to the evil the statutory provisio* s€eks to remedy. A statute is presumed
constitutional,o'

While the seope of the eavesdropping statute may nct be clear in every
application, the laagr:age of the stalute is cletr

it

its applicaticn to defendant's conduct.

See People Ex Rel, Rvan v. World Churcb 198 i1l.2d 115,123-124 ( l1.Sup.Cr200l);
See also, Halder v. Humanitarian Law Proiect. 130 S,

CLZT*5,Z7I8,-ZTI? {2010).

The court does not find the statute vag$e as to defendant's conduct. As such, defendan{'s c,laim o'f ysgucnsss is denied.

DUE PROCESS

Il

Madrigal. the lllinois Supreme Court in its'"Analysis" spoke of the Due

Process Clause of the Illinois and United Sta:es Consitutiam: 'oUnder lhe banner of its police power, the legislature has wide discretion to

fashion penalties for crimiaal offenses, but this discretion is limited by the constihrtional guaraatee cf substantive due process, whicb provides thar ape{sofi may not be deprived of liberty without due process cf law. people. v. Wri*t 194 ff1.2d 1, 24 {2000). When 1he challengd srafute does not affect a fimdzureniat constitutional righ! the apprcpriate test for deGrmining its constit$tionaliry is the highly deferential rational basis test. Carperer- ZZgIll.Zd
means adopted

at767; Johngr,q. 2251*.2d at 584-85. Under thar test, a statuts will be sustained if it 'kars a rEasonable relatiomhip ta a public interesf to bs served, a.nd the

assess whether &e prohibitions co*tained in 16G-1S{a}fi} reasonably implement that purpose. The language sf the sahrte itseif is the best indicator of thJ legislative intent and sratutory purpose- cargenter. zz& lfi .zd at 26g.'

wrighr 194IIl. zd *t24 (quoting peogle v- Adan's., 144 fiL- 2d 3gl, 390i199t). Accordingiy we must fir$ dsterrnine the statute's pr:rpose in order ts

re

a reasonable method of accomplishing the desired otrjective,"'

The Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, ??0 ILCS

sll+?states:

(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he: {1} kriowtrgty aad intentioaally usss an eavesdrcpping device for the purpose afhearing or recording all or any

part ofany sonversalion or irrtercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) witb the cclsent of all cf tlre parties to such conversaticn or elwtronic ccmmrurication. ...o

77

Sep 15 1l O2:43p

Craur€ard Co Judges Bffice

6t45444114

p-4

720 ILCS 5/l 4-1 (d) rJefines "conversalion":

communication between 2 or more Fersons regardless of rvhether one or more the parties intended their cammunication to be of a private nature urder
circurnstances

"For the Furilase$ of this Artictq the term cctversation means aay oral

of

j"s*ifybg that expectation.

The Illinois Eavesdropping Statute has at its core the desire "ta protect individuals

&om unwarranted invasions of privacy." 87 lllinois Bar Journal. p. 363 (July 1999).
oo.-.filiaois citizens a:e entitled to be safeguarded fram rrrlnecessaqy governmental

suweillance and other uffeasonable intnrsions into their privacy." Pl-oSkJ- Foaxd
S$ucatio+ of Freeport School

of

DisrictNo. 145, 396 ltl. App.3d 960,966

q2nd

Disr 2009).

Defendarrt csntends that the Iliinois Eavesdrcppiag Statute violates Due Process and is therefore rxrconstitutional because &e eiements of eavesdropping do not require

criminal intent. Defendant contends &e eavedropping statuts

subjec,ts innocent conduct

to criminal penalty. Defendart eites The People of the State of illinois v.ClaudlA
hded*fieal,

Ill.Sup.Ct Docket 110194 {March 20ii) and Pessle.y. Carpent€r. 228111,2d

250 {2008} in support of his contention. ln Madrigal" fu.8)

tle iliiqois

Supreme Court

struck down a portion of the ldentity Theft l-aw because it did not require a culpable meatal state or sdminal purpose to be convicted of

afelcny.

The

portior of the statute

strick$

as uncanstitutianal only req*ired "mere

knowledge". The court noted the statute

"punislres a significant amount cf vvholly innocent conduct not r€lated to the statute's purpose,. . ..(p.8). Defendant Allison csritends the same analysis condenms the Illinois

Eave*dropping Statute" Defendant alleges tke eavesdropping staiute does not cantain a
cuipable mental state resulting iri irxrocent coqduct possibly being punished. Defendant
argues that since the eavesdrapping statute lacks a culpable mental state beyond both

knowledge of the recorder's

alility to record aad the intent to recor{ ttre sta&rte fails the

a8

Sep 15 11 O2:44p

Crsurford Cc Judges Office

6185444174

p.S

raiional basis test- Defendant gontends tbe Illinois Eavesdropping Statut€ does not
contain a reasonable rne*as of preventing the targeted conduct ar evil purpose--+he rmwarranted intrr:sion inta citizens privacy- Therefore, Defesdant cnnterds ths statute violates due process^

In Mgdrigal

x

page 4, the court stated:

rxe c+nsidered the facial constitutionality

*Simply pul, this court has held that in such qases, a stat$te fails the rational basis test becarse it daes not represeat a reasonable methcd of preventing the targeted condact- See Carselttef. 228I11.2t.269; Wright. 194 lfl. 2d a125. In Carpente"-r,

ofa statute fhal ban*ed false or sesret somparbaents in automobiiq5. Bssause the statute in that case lacked a culpable mental sfate beyond both knowledge cfthe comparsnenl's capacityto conceal and an iatenf to conceal, we beld tbat the statute 'did not contain a reasonable rfieans afpreventing the targeied ccnduc! and it therefore violated due process.' Carpenter, 228 lll:d at 269." Smphasis sapplied)

720 ILCS 5l1a-2(a) requires only tbat aperson "knowingiy and intentionally uses
an eavesdropping device for the purpose ofhearing or recording all or any part

ofanv
parties

(emphasis mpplied) conversation-..unless" it is dorrc *with the consent of ail

*e

to such conversation." The state fu. 17 tra:rscript August 18, 2011 hearing) atterrrpts to distinguish Madrigal from this case by arguiag Madrisa! only required omeFe kncwledge" while &e eavesdropping statute requires krowledge and intent to us+ trr
eavesdrcpping device f'or the purpos€ of reording any conversation. However, Madrigal
addresses fhis argument by citing to qer"entef {see quote above} where knowiedge and

intent to use

tk secret compartrent were still found fo lack criminal

intent as not

everything placed in the secret co$pa$rnent would constihrte criminal conduct Wholly innocent conduct couid potentially be zubjected to a felony conviotion. The same

ordiuary and properly understoad meanings ofthe words of the eavcsdropping statute that
denied defendant's vagueness argument condesrn the stat$b for lack of criminal intent-

'7f

SeF 15 1l O2:44p

Cra{iford Co Judges Office

61854441r4

p.5

The slatr: also argues that flte word'opurpose" creates a distinciian. The slzte argues that
a

patent fihning a ssn's little league garne vrhich reccrds i*cidental conversatia[s'lrorrld

most likely have a very good ar$lmerrt that they ars soi guilty under this statute."

However, the statute in clear laaguage refers to aay conver$alion.
The

llli*sis Eavesdr*ppi*g

Statute would p*tentially punish as a felony a wide
a

array af wholly innoceat goaduct. For examplg

jumr using an audio recorder to record

directions to flre courthause for jury duty given by a police ofiicer would be in violation

of the st*ute wi{hout tbe cansent of the officer. Recording a police cffcer's instructioas
on where to pay a speeding ticket or where a tawed vehicle cauid

k

picked up woriid

violate the stalute witlout the consent of t}re cfficer. Other examples are set forth in
defendant's r*otion and axe not restated herein-

As aoted abcve, the pr:rpose of the eavesdropping statute is to safeguard Iilinois
citizens from unnecessary govemmental surveillance and otherrmreasonable inhusions

into their privacy. The problem with the statute is it sweeps in wbolly innocent conduct
that has acttrjng to do with iatrusion intc citizens privacy- The statute includes conduct that is unrelated to the sfarutels purpss€ aad not rationally related to the evil the Iegislation sought to prohibit. Fcr exarnple, a defendxrt reording his case in a

ca*rhoom has nothing to do

*ith

intrusion into a citizen's privacy but with distraction.

Distraction issues are handled by Supreme Court Rule 63 (A)

{n- It is pennitted

only to

the €xtent autlorized by &e lllinois Supreme Court. Under the state's contentian, tlre
same information

prmissibly recorded in a courFoorr. by electrenic reccrding or by a

court relnrter becomes under the statute a elass 1 felony intrusion ofprivacy rights recorded by adefendanl

if

go

SeF 15 11 frZ:44p

Crauford Cc Judge* Office

61454441?4

p.7

As ncted by defendant" the Illinsis Supreme Ccurt broadcasts their oral mguments

simultane*usly

oln

their w'sbsite so they ean be heafd from any place

il

the couatry.

A

defendant eculd sit et home and record his case being arg$ed as t&e eleetronie corn-rnunication under 72S ILCS 5/11-1(e) is not intended to be private. However, under the statute, the defendarrt would expcse himself to a class 1 felo:ry if the recording r+-ere attempted in the lllinois Supreme Court eourtroom. The differeuce between dishaction and intrusion into privacy is evident- As noted in Holder v. Humalitarian La'w Proiecl

i30 S. Ct. 2?A5,2718 (20i0): '"'Attlougb this Co*rt will often skain to consrue
legislation so as to save it against constitatianal attack, it must nat and will not carry. &is
to the Foint ofperverting the purpose of a statute."

Wkrefore, the court grants tlte motion to dismiss finding that the Iliinois
Eavesdropping Sf*tute lacks aculpable rneatal state aad subjects wholly inno*ent corrduct to presecutior- Under lllinois Supreme Cnwt Rule 18, the court finds the Illinois Eavesdropping Stat{*e is u*conscitutio*alon its hce and as applied to defendant as the
statute is violative ofsubstantive dr,re process- Thc court finds the stahlte violates

sabstarrtive due proceus undsr the Fourtecctth Amendmerrt ofthe United States Consda,rtion (IJ.S- Const, amend.-XiV) and article I, section 2 ofthe Illinois Co*stifirtion

(Itl. CansL 1978,e*.I,Sec.2). The cor:rt further fi,nds the statut€ cannot be construed in a
manner that wouid preserve its vatidity acd &e judgrnent cannot rest upon

al altemative

gr*uad- Notice

r.rnder

Iliiaois Supreme Court Rule

19 was given.

prnsr A]*ENDMENT
Defendanq Micbael D. AJiison, also contends the eavesdropping statute violates his First Amendment rigbt to gather inforrnation by aadio recording from poliee offieers

8t

Sep 15 11 O2:45p

Crau,fond Co Judges Offiee

6

1A5444LT4

p.8

and public servarts invalved in his ordinar:ce violation case. He maintai:rs a right to

galher information on mattefs of publ'ic concem. Defendant conte:rds tlre First Ameadrnent provides special protection for speech conceming the perforrnaace

of

gavefirmert officials. {P. 3, Defendant Reply Brief}. Fefeadant argses it is of paramormt public interest for the free flow of infomratian c$ncemisg prrblic officialsIn &is case, defendant was charged with a city ardinance viclation that brought

him inta the court sy#em. In dmlir:g with his ordinance viclation, defendant er:countered public senrants and public offisials in the ferm of police ofncers, city attomey and his
employee, circuit clerk employee ard judge. In gatheri:rg information concerning his
case, defendant is charged

with violation ofthe eavesdropping statute

as noted above.

Defendant ccntends that "the right-to-reccrd casss rest an principles: tlre First

Amendment's sEoftg prcteclian of speecb abcut government affrcials ard matters

of

public concern, speech i* public forusrs and gathering infarrn*tion necessary fo! one's
own effective expression." {)Reply Brief, p.8).
The state response arguas the prohibition on recording conversations without the €onsent

cfthe public officials daes not restrict the defendant's abilify to speak or express

himself. The state contends &at in spite af the eavesdropping $tat$te, defendant ca:r say
a$ylhing he wants about his encounferwith thepublic afficials including the content
any recorded conversation. He just ean't recard conversa.tions betrveerr twa or more
psrsons without the consent of all parties.

of

There appears to be little csselaw sn the matter otler than some federal csurt

Unior-gf decisions many of wfuch are distinguishable on the facts. Am. Civil Liberties

Illbois v. Alvarea No'

10

C 5235,2001 WL 66030 {fi' D' Ill- Jan' l0,2Al l}, never

AA

SeP 15 1I O2:45p

Crevrford Co Judges Offiae

6195444t,4

p.5

reached the issue as it wa"s dismissed on the issue sf standi,:rg" "Aithougb

Illi*ois

state

cocrts arc {rot bound ts follow federal court decisions, such decisiarx can provide guida*ee and serve as persu:lsive authorify.* People v. HaywoQ4 407 nl. App.3d 54s,
546

8#

Dist-

20lt),
I0Aug.26,2011i- InGliktheu. s. court

One persuasive autlorify is found in{he recent case of Glik v. CWniffe. No.

t?64 _F.3d_,2011 wL 3769092(1'tCir.
of Appeals far *re First Circuit ncted:

*7 In sunmary, though not unqualified, a citizen's rigbt to film government officials, including law erfarcenent officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established libedy ufeguarded by the
First Amendme*t.
The case invclved a yolmg man arrested fcr

flming with his cell phone several police

of*cers on public prcperty whiie they were axiesting an individuai. The court *amed the
First Amendment issue:

*is fhere a constitutionally protected right to videatape police

canTing out &eir.duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with
csselaw *om this and other circuits, answer the questicn rxrambiguously in the

affgmative." {A.

1. {2} p.

4). The court fixt}rer stated: *4 *Ths filming of government

clficials engaged in their duries in a public place, including police officers perforrning
tbeir respcnsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles." The court roted that *re First Amendment does:!ot gmnt a constihrtional right to the press over all individuai in
gatheriag

irformati*n. Tehrrology

and the "proliferatiou af electronic devices" liave

blurred the line between journalist and private citizen. Amendment right

Clil( {*5 ) points

out that the First

*may be subject to reascnable time, place and manner resfrictions-"

The stale cites MAtheny rr.-Cntv. o.f .Alleghe*v. Perrrs$vania' 2010 WL 100859'

20i0 U.S. Disr. LE]ilS 2418g,(W.D. Pa March 16, 2010), for the prcposition that a

a3

SeF 15 11 O2:4Sp

Craulford Co Judges Office

61854441r4

P. 1ff

limitcd rigfut to videotape police conduet has not ben recognized in the context of audio recording. Howevef, the cou$ in that casc wtts dealing witb the issue of qualified
irnrnu*iry ard whether tlre First Amsndment rigftt to record raas "clearly established".
The cauri found "the subject is plairrly underdeveloped'o and not "cleariy established" but not that it dids't exisi. M*reover, in Kellv v- BorouEh of Qarlisle, 622 F .3d 248, 762 {3'd

Cir. 2S10), zubsequeatly dec.ided a"fter Ma&eny, the court stated:

'?loreovsr, even insofar

it is elearly estabiished, the right to record matters of public concem is not absclute; it is subject to reasonabi,e time, place, and marmer re*ictions, as iong as they are Justified without reference to the content of the
as

regulared speech,...are narrowly tailored to serve a sigaificant governmental interst, and...leave open aurple aitemative channel for eommunication *f the

information.' (citation cmitted).

(7d' Cif- lg9?]- While [see also Potgs. v. citv of Lafa.yette. I$di8$a 12lF.3d 1106, I 111 itating there is r:othing in tle Canstitution r*hich guamntee$ the rigltt to record a public even! the safety regalation anaiysis by the court consideredthe time, place, or lnarrner refaictian on "First Amendrnent" activities.]

Insight into the First Amendment issue on the right to record is found in the

article:

Perv_?$ive

Isa+e CaFture

ar:d the FirSt Amendmenl;, Memo{y. Pisq.gufsq. ard the

ni*glq_Bfcord,

*358 159 U.PaL.Rev. 335, $an.
and Fublic Officials

20lllr. In the article it is stated inpart:

a Privacy, Dignity,

officials who invoke protections fcr privacy to justifu punishing those who mc*itcr public conduct rnistake their own anxieties forc*nstitutional justification. (citi*g BarEricki v. Vopoer, 532 U-S. 514 {2001)} like privaey inlerests that many commertatorF argue cormterbalance the interest in free expression, guard free discourse by private eitizsns who use the shelter ofprivacy to'"think and act creatively and constructively." Whea privacy frrnctions to rxrderpin democratic society, tlre interests in free **ptoiion may balance o*e amther. Suppressicnaf free eryres.sion on Se part sf those wlro capture information may protect the Seedom to convexe of tirose whose words alrd images are captruedTbe privacy iaterests recognized in Bartnicki,

But officers {emp. srpplied) confronting demons;trators, motorists, or tbe sr:bjects

10

2f

Sep 15 1l O2:46p

Cnaufond Co Judges Sffiee

61854441:4

P. 1t

of arrest (emp. supplied)-tike other stfeet*level bureaucrafs providing servicesneither eilgage in dialogue by u&ich they defrne their private identities nor in discourss tlat coctributes to public deliberation. Maqy of the official subjects of image capture are not engaged in discourse of any sorl Those whe speak do so not ss autsnonous eitizens working out their own thcughts and destiny, but as public sewants carrying out tlreir duties. The Court recently emphasized tial 'when public empl*yees make sta;tements pursuant to their ofiicial duties, the employees are not speaking as sitizens for Fint Amesdmentpurposes' and ean claim scant protection under guarantees offree expression designed to shield the rliscourse af citizens. A forriori, they caa claim ao compelliag rigbt as citizens tc shield that speqph ftqm being rqeorded. (emp.supplied) Nar can public actors claim a right to preserve ttrek personal digdfy against public inspection vrhen &ey carry cut their d*ties...,&ar protec-tions against wiretapping not only "ea*curage corivsrsatisil$ that othegwise migkt not take place,' but they also protect apprtrurities for intimacy: 'They resernble laws that would award damages caussd t}:rough publication of infcrmation abtained by tbeft &om a private bedrnona.' A police oficff investigating a crime ca$ assert no comparable rigttt to intimacy wi& ber suspects; still less can a public offrcial engaged in her duties on a public sfieet. Cerfainly, law officiais have no constiArtianally copizable or legitimate expectatio:r that their aetions remain unrecorded; on the contrary, the actions af public cfiicials are by definition amatter of pubiic concem. {Citations omitted) 1\trerefore, the court fiads that the defendant pcssessed a First Amendrnent rigbt

tc gather inflrmation by audio recording public officials involved in per$onning their
public duties. The First Arnendmerrt right to record is not absolute as it is subject to
reascnable time, place atd manner restrictions slch as Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63

iAX?)- Defe*dant wouldnot

be able to record in the courfroors wlder his First

Amendmert rigbt to gather information because Supreme Court Ruie 63 (AX?) irrposes
reasoaatrie time, place and manner

resfictions. Tho lllinois Eavesdropping Statute is

found ta be u:rconstifritional in violalisn of defendant's First A:nendme$ right as

it

prohibits any audio recerdings of any public officia1's conversations with defendant in his
afre16pt

ts gather informati+n from public

servaJrts performing their duties on his case are no

unless they consent to the recording

ofthe conversalion. There

limitaticns. There

are no time, place ar:d manner resuictians to consider under &e statute as

it imposes a

II

2S

sep 15 11 oz:4sp

crauford co Judges office 61gs444r 4

F. 1e

blankst n{e on forbidding ail recordings in such case without tJre consent of the public

servant A statute intended to pr€veat rmwarranted intrusions into

a sitizen's

privacy

carurct be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a camparable right

of

privacy in theh public d*1ies. such ectioa impedes the free flow of infsrmation
concerning public officials and violaies the First Amendmentrightto galber such

information.
The court finds that the moticn to dismiss should be granted. The caurt finds the

Illinois Eavesdropping Statute is uncon$irutional

as apptied to defendant's

First

Amendment right under the First Amendment of the United State* Constitution {U.S. const., arnend. $ to ga*her intbrmation abcut his case by audio recording. The court finds the statute cannot be construed in a rnanner that wculd pre$€rvs its vatidity aad the judginent can:rot r€st upon an altemative grcund. Notise under $upreme Court R*le 19
was given.

$uMl\4ARY
For the reascns stated and the findings made as set farth above, the eourt denies the motioa to disn:iss the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute as unconstifirtionai on the clainr

of being void for vagueness. The court gfants the motion to disrniss the charges on
deferrdant's claim that the Illincis Eavesdropping Statute is unconstitutional as vioiating substantive due process and the

Fixt

Anrendment right to gather information.

Dated: Septanber /.5_

,201i.

Judge David K. Frmklarrd

12

8c

DAI LY COPY

PREPAREL

32

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1I 2A 21 22 23 24

1

n.

Yes,

0. A. 0.

it

is.

So you knew

that your

words were be'ing recorded?

They could be, yes.

In fact every time

anyone leaves a message

it's

being

recorded, right?

A. 0.

If their
Let

message machine

me understand

is working, I the procedure here.

assume so'

So you, you

back up a1l

of your transcripts and audio recordings to a hard

drive, correct?

transcript, June 18, 2008, transcript and audio is backed up somewhere on that hard drive? A. The transcript is backed up on the hard drive, an external hard drive, the audio is not.

A. 0, A. 0.

Yes.

Do you know how
My computer

big that hard dri ve

i s?

is only 60 gig.

But as we speak today, you have this particular

Strike 0. And you chose not to move the wav. file that. Let me be a I i ttl e more cl ear, The wav. file is the audio file, right? A. Yes. 0. And you choose to not back up the audio file when you

transfer the material to your hard drive? A. No, I don't choose. The software does not keep 'it.

32

You're Reading a Free Preview

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