Motion to Recuse Appoint Prosecutor

8/13/2019 Motion to Recuse Appoint Prosecutor

1/21

State Of Illinois

vAnnabel K Melongo

IN THE CIRCUIT OURT OF OOK COUNTY ILLINOISCRIMINAL DIVISION

Plaintiff

Defendant

))))

)))

No. 08CR1 0502

Judge Steven J Goebel

Motion To Have Mr. Podlasek Recused And To Appoint Special ProsecutorNOW comes ANNABEL K ME LONGO, ProSe, and petitions this Court to appoint a special prosecutorand to request that Mr. Pod Iasek recused himself in the above case for the following reasons:

1. On July 101h 2013, defendant filed a civil right case naming, among others, Mr. Podlasek, Mrs.Anita Alvarez, Mrs. Julie Gunnigle and Investigator Kate O'hara , all employed by the Cook County StateAttorney during the events that gave rise to the complaint.2. Mr. Podlasek is currently prosecuting defendant in the above captioned case. This creates aninherent conflict of interest in that he's the accuser in the present case and a defendant in the civil rightcase. Attached exhibit A. Furthermore, it also creates the appearance of impropriety in that the name ofthe case is Me/ongo v. Podlasek eta and that Mr. Pod Iasek can't no longer objectively prosecute Ms.Melongo without any personal interest or emotional attachment to the case.3. Mrs. Anita Alvarez is also sued in the civil right case in her individual and official capacity andSection 3-9008 provides that [w]henever the State's attorney is sick or absent, or unable to attend, or isinterested in any cause or proceeding , civil or criminal , which it is or may be his duty to prosecute ordefend, the court in which said cause or proceeding is pending may appoint some competent attorney toprosecute or defend such cause or proceeding. 55 ILCS 5/3-9008 (West 2002). This statute thuspermits the hearing body to exercise its discretion in reviewing the circumstances to determine the need

for such action. [Citations.] Such authority notwithstanding, that discretion must be exercised to promotethe underlying policy o a just, fair and impartial hearing, and where those ends are thwarted, an abuse ofdiscretion occurs. Sommer 102 Ill. App. 3d at 120, 429 N.E.2d at 903.

1


2/21

WHEREFORE, the defendant is requesting Mr. Podlasek s recusal and is furthering asking theappointment of a special prosecutor in the above captioned case given that the Cook Cook StateAttorney Office is now an interested party in defendant s case.

Atty. No : 99500Attorney For: Annabel K. MelongoAddress: P O Box 5658City/State/Zip: Chicago. IL 60680Telephone: 312-415-6632

2

Respectfully Submitted,1 .t

Defendant s lawyer


3/21

xhibitA

N THE UNITED ST TES DISTRICT COURT . ~ E ; -, i_ r, , ,FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT O ILLINOIS ' - , ' ' 1E; :4E STERN DIVISION

ANNABEL K. MELONGO.Plaintiff

v 1 . 1 3 ~ c v - 0 4 9 2 4Judge JohROBERT PODLASEK Assistant State Attorney. Ma i n F GradJULIE GUNNIGLE Assistant State Attorney. Strate JudgeS Y KATE O'HARA (STAR NO. 423) Cook County InvestigmL hel a M FinnJAMES DILLON (STAR NO. I068 Cook County Sherriff. eganANTONIO RUBI NO (STAR NO. 5043) Cook County SherriffInvestigator. RICH LESIAK (STAR NO. 5000) CookCounty Sheniff Invest igator. UN KNOWN COOK COUNTY JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDSHERIFF OFFICERS. Dr. MATTHEWS. MARKOS DirectorForensic Clinical Services. MARILYN FtllSHIO Officialoun Reponers administrator. PAMELA TAYLOR Official

Court Reponer Assistant Administrator. LAUREL LAUDINOfficial Colllt Reporter. KYLE FRENCH Assistant AttorneyGeneral. AMBER HAQQANI Computer Forensic Expert,LISA MADIGAN Illinois Attorney General.AN ITA ALVAREZ Cook Count) State Anorne).TOM DART Cook County Sherriff. COOK COUNTY.

Defendants.

COMPL INTP l a i n t i f f ~ Annabel K. Melon go. Pro Se, complains of defendants ROBERT PODLASEK Assistant StateAttorne:: . JULIE GUNNIGLE Assistant State Attorne) . KATE O HARA (STAR NO. 423) Cook Countylmestigator, SERGEANT JAMES DILLON (STAR NO. 1068) Cook County Sherriff: ANTONIORUBINO (STAR NO. 50-B} Cook County Sherriff Investigator. RICH LESIAK (STAR NO. 5000) CookCounty Sherriff Investigator. UNKNOWN COOK COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICERS. Dr. MATTHEVv' S.MARKOS Director Forensic Clinical Services. MARILYN A. FILISHIO Official oun ReponersAdministrator, PAMELA TAYLOR Official Court Reporter Assistant Administrator. LAUREL LAUDINOfticiat Court Reporter. KYLE FRENCH Assistant Attorney General, AMBER HAQQANI ComputerForensic Expert. LISA MADIGAN Illinois Attorney General. ANITA ALVAREZ Cook County StateAttomey. TOM J. DART Cook County Sherriff. COOK COUNTY as follows:


4/21

INTRODU TIONI. In January of 20 I 0 and continuing thereafter. the above Defendants engaged in conspirac) to

cause Plaintiff Annabel K. Me Iongo to be charged of six counts of eavesdropping and to spendmore than 2 months of unla\\ ful incarceration at the Cook Count) Jail.Defendants conspirac: included a v.illful disregard of a statutor: exemption. 72 ILCS 5/1-1-J(i).and the conscious use of a statute. 720 ILCS 5/14-2. lacking a criminal mental state.

3. As a direct consequence to Defendants actions. Plaintiff endured extraordinary hardships andundenvent incalculable loss, pain and humiliation for which she snow seeking redress.

JURJSDI TION ND VENUE1. This action is brought pursuant to 12 u.S.C. 1983 to redres::, the depri,ation under color of

law of Plaintiff's rights as secured by the United States Constitution as \\ell as deprivation ofrights under state Ia .

5. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. 1367. Venue is proper under 28U.S.C. 1391(b). The par1ies reside in this judicial district, and the events giving rise to theclaims asser1ed herein occurred in this judicial district.

THE P RTIES6. PlaintiffANNABEL K. MELONGO. 40. is from Cameroon. West Africa. and came to the

United States on a student visa. She's a resident of Cook County. Illinois.7. At all times relevant hereto. Defendants Robert Podlasek and Julie Gunnigle \\ere attorne)S

licensed to practice lmv in the State of Illinois and duly appointed Cook County AssistantState's Attorneys.

8. At all times rele\ ant hereto. Kate O'llara (Star No. 43) was an in\ estigator employed b: CookCount: State Attorney office.

9. At all times relevant hereto. Sgt. James Dillon (Star No. 1068). Investigator Antonio Rubino(Star No. 50-13 . Ill\ estigator Rich Lesiak (Star 1o. 5000) and the unkno\\ n Cook Count:sheri IT officers were duly appointed members of the Cook Count) SherTill P o l i ~ : e Department.

I0. At all times relevant hereto. Mrs. Pamela Taylor and Mrs. Laurel Laud in were Official CourtReporters employed b: the Official Court Reporters and paid by the State Of Illinois.

II . At all rimes relevant hereto. Mr. Kyle French ,,as an attome: licensed to practice law in theState or Illinois and a duly appointed Assistant Illinois Attorney Ge neral.

12 At all times rele\ ant hereto. Mrs. Amber Haqqani \ \3S a computer forensic e:-..pen employed bthe Illinois Attome: General.


5/21

13. At all times relevant hereto, Dr. MatthewS. Markos was the director of Forensic ClinicalServices which provide comprehensive and diagnostic clinical services to the court and relatedagencies under the court's jurisdiction. The agency employs psychiatric, psychological andsocial service methods in the delivery of clinical services and submits clinical opinions andrecommendations to the court.

14. Each ofthe above defendants (paragraphs 7-13) is sued in his individual capacity.15 At all times relevant hereto. Mrs. Marilyn A Filishio was the administrator of the Official

Court Reporters with duties to oversee the recording of certain court proceedings verbatimeither through the taking of stenographic notes or by an electronic recording system approvedby the Illinois Supreme Court . In her capacity, she ensures that all transcripts prepared as theofficial record of court proceedings are prepared pursuant to applicable Illinois Supreme Courtrules . This suit is brought against Mrs. Filishio in her individual and official capacity.

16 At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Lisa Madigan was the Attorney General of the State ofIllinois. In that capacity, she ''consult[s] with and advise[s] the several state's attorneys inmatters relating to the duties of their office: and when, in [her] judgment. the interest of thepeople of the state requires it. [ s ]he shall attend the trial of any party accused of crime, andassist in the prosecution. 15 ILCS 205/4. This suit is brought against Attorney GeneralMadigan in her individual and official capacity.

17 At all times relevant hereto. Defendant Anita Alvarez was the State Attorney responsible forenforcing criminallav.s within Cook County. This suit is brought against State AttorneyAlvarez in her individual and official capacity.

18 At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Tom J Dan was the Cook County Sheriff responsiblefor patrolling unincorporated areas of Cook County as well as assisting suburban policedepartments with police operations including. but not limited to, detective and evidenceservices. narcotics interdiction. bomb detection and disposal, vice operations. gang crimesinvestigation, hostage. barricade and terrorist incidents. This suit is brought against CookCounty Sheriff Dart in his individual and official capacity.

19 Defendant Cook County is a County in the state of Illinois which employs or employed Mr.Robert Podlasek, Mrs . Julie Gunnigle, Mrs . Kate O Hare, Dr. Matthew Markos and Mrs. AnitaAlvarez.

3


6/21

LLEG TIONSOF F CTA. F CTS

20 On October 31.2006, Plaintiff was charged with three counts of Computer tampering allegingremotely deleting files. most ) financial. belonging to Sa\e-A-Life Foundation Inc .. a nm'defunct non-for-profit organization with ties to the Illinois Anorney General and the CookCounty State Anorney Office.The imestigation that led to these charges \\as conducted b) Mr. Kyle French of the IllinoisAnomey General Office. Mr. Randy Roberts. Executive Assistant to Cook County StateAttomey and Mr. William Martin. detective at the Schiller Park Police.

22 On l\'ovember 15. 2006 upon being infom1ed of the charges against her. Plaintiff surrendered to a judgein the Rolling Meadows Courthouse . She was later released on an -Bond.

23. On January I0. 2007 the charges against Plaintiff \\ere dismissed for lack of evidence.2-+. On or about Jul: of 2008. ,,hen Plaintiff ordered the January I0. 2007. transcript. to her surprise. not

only the date ofthe hearing. but its content were tampered \Vith. The transcript stated that the dismissalwas no longer due to lack of e\ idence but rather. due to a superseded indictment not corroborated b:any court record. When Plaintiff called the coun repor1er. Mrs. Annemary Tabor. to inquire. the courtreponer hung up after telling Plaintiff that the transcript \ >as a faithful representation of theproceedings.

25. On January I7. 2007 Plaintiff was indicted in 2600 California Ave .. Chicago. IL. on the same computertampering charges and her Rolling Meado>' s -Bond was transferred .

26. On Ma) 28. :?.008. a ne\\ indictment on the same charges superseded the Januar: 200 7 indictment. Thearraignment's date was set for June 18 2008.

27. Upon realizing that she wasn't arraigned on June 18 2008. Plaintiff ordered \arious court rec ords toconfirm this. Indeed. the docket. the judge s half sheets and notes and the court call sheet shO\\ed noarraignment.

28. On December 4 20 I0. hen Plaintiff received the arraignment's transcript from Mrs. Laurel Laud in ,the transcript showed an arraignment. Plaintiff as a result. called Mrs. Laurel Laud in. Mrs. Laud in toldPlaintiff that she was properly arraigned. When Plaintiff threatened to file a complaint. Mrs. Laud inhung up .

29 On December 10.2009. Mrs. Pamela Taylor. an assistant administrator at the Official Court Reportersand supposedly Mrs. Laudin's supervisor, called Plaintiff' and forbade her to ever call Mrs. Laudin .Irritated. Plaintiff' hung up .

4


7/21

30. Minutes later. Mrs. Pamela Taylor called back Plaintiff and left a voicemail wherein Mrs. Taylorreiterated that Mrs. Laud in shouldn't be contacted. Mrs. Taylor made herself available for anydiscussion related to the tampered cour1 transcript.

31. Later that da). using the phone number prescribed in the \'Oicemail. Plaintiff called Mrs. Taylor.Unconstrained. Mrs. Taylor answered Plaintiffs questions and discussed the facts surrounding thetampered cour1 transcript. Plaintiff recorded that conversation.

32. On December 15 2009, and December 16 2009. subsequent phone conversations on the tamperedcourt transcript ben ,een Plaintiff and Mrs. Taylor continued. Plaintiff recorded said cornersations aswell.

33. On December 17 t 2009. Plaintifftranscribed and posted the recordings on her website. theillinoiscorruprion.ner. Additional ly. she added a note on that website stating that her actions wereprotected by 720 ILCS 5/ 14-3( i). an exempt ion permitting recording to prove a crime. Theillinoiscorruprion.net ebsite as a chronological description of Plaintiff's computer tampering case 1

34. On December 18. 2009. using the lntemet 's links of the recorded conversations on theillinoiscorruprion.ne/ \\ebsite. Plaimiff contacted an FBI agent.

35. On January gth 2010. while ProSe Plaintiff filed an amended motion to dismiss the charges ofcomputer tampering. The grounds of her motion \\ere perjured statements of the state s itness.Detective William Ma11in of Schiller Park Police, and prosecutorialmisconductof the state prosecutor,Mr. Robe11 Podlasek.

36. On or about January 15. 2010. Amber Haqqani. a computer forensic expert ' orking under the directionof Mr. Kyle French. captured the il inoiscorruprion.net website. Subsequent captures were used asevidence at Plaintiff's eavesdropping trial.

3 7. On or about March 2 10. and continuing thereafter. Mrs. Kate o Hara. Mrs. Julie Gunn igle and Mr.Robert Podlasek opened an investigation and issued subpoenas to GoDaddy. Yahoo and financialinstitutions to find out the owner and the email acti\ ities of the i linuiscorrzrprion.ner website.

38. On March 31 20 l0, Plaintiff v.as scheduled to argue her motion to dismiss the computer tamperingcharges. Ho\vever. Mr. le French. Mr. Robert Pod Iasek and Mrs. Julie Gunnigle moved to request apsychological evaluation ( BCX ) on Plaintiff to determine her fitness to stand trial and to representherself

39. On April 13. 20 I0, at around II .OOam Plaintiff submitted to the BCX and Dr. Markos posed as thepsychological examiner. During the examination session. unknmvn Cook Count) sheritfofficers

1 The noiscorruption net website has since evolved into portraying events of the eavesdropping case its appeal at the i ll ino is Supreme Courtand the present Civil Right case At th e time of Plaintiff s arrest on the eavesdropping charges. the website averaged 5,000 hits. It was used orreferenced by many media outlets.

5


8/21

knocked at the door and Dr. Markos left the room for a shott period. When he came back, theinterrogation shifted from a psychological angle to the i linoiscorruprion.net website. Dr. Markoswanted to know its owner, the author of the posts and the meaning of the word SU RPRISE'' on theMarch 3 d, 2010, entry of the website. Plaintiff avoided the self-incriminatory questions the best shecould. Afterward. Dr. Markos ended the session. As Plaint ifl was stepping out of her psychologicalevaluation, she was arrested by unknown Cook County SherriffOfficers. Her Miranda Rights werenever read and the charges against Plaintiff never stated. Plaintiff, in handcuffs, was immediately takento Cook County Central Intelligence Unit (""CIU'') for funher processing.

40. Once at CIU. Sgt. James Dillon, Investigator Rich Lesiak and Investigator Antonio Rubino also tried toextract self-incriminatory statements from Plaintiff regarding the illinoiscorruption.ner website.However, Plaintiff wouldn't answer any question and referred all inquiries to her lawyer. Mr. NickAlbukerk. Two U.S Marshalls also came and asked the same self-incriminatory questions. Plaintiff.again. wouldn't answer and referred the U.S. Marshalls to her lawyer. Later that day, she finally learnedthat she was charged of eavesdropping. After being processed. she was transferred to Maywood Jai Iwhere she spent the night.

41. On April 13'". 20 l0, Mrs. Pamela Taylor filed a criminal complaint against Plaintiff alleging violation ofthe Illinois Eavesdropping statute. Worth noting, the complaint was never signed or sworn.

42. On April 13 ' 20 I 0, Investigator Kate O'Hara successfully obtained a search warrant and an arrestwarrant for the charges of eavesdropping against Plaintiff. Judge James Linn signed both warrants.

43. On April I4, 20 I 0, Plainti ff initial bond was setto $30,000 at the bond court.44. On April 20 , 20 l 0, Judge Mary Brosnahan. upon Mr. Robert Pod Iasek and Julie Gunnigle request. set

Plaintiff's additional bond to $500,0000 for violation of -Bond conditions.45. On April 27'. 20 l 0, Plaintiff was indicted \Vith three counts of recording phone conversations with Mrs.

Pamela Taylor. 720 ILCS 5/ 14-l(a)( I) , and three counts of publishing said conversations on theillinoiscorruprion.net website, 720 I LCS 5/ 14-2(a)(3 ). At the indictment, Mrs. Julie Gunnigle was thestate attorney and Mrs. Kate 0 Hara was the states witness.

46. On May 51h, 2010. Judge Brosnahan. upon Plaintiff's motion , reduced the bond to $300,0000.Plaintiff's final bond became $330,0000. Not being able to post it, Plaintif f remained incarcerated atthe Cook County Jail for more than a year and half.

47 . On July 26' 2010, Plaintiff. through her lawyer, was scheduled to argue her motion to dismiss thecomputer tampering charges. However, Mr. Pod Iasek and Mrs. Julie Gunnigle switched election to theEavesdropping charges.


9/21

48. On December 13' , 20 I0, Plaintiff's first motion to dismiss the eavesdropping charges was denied byJudge Brosnahan. The basis of the motion was the statutory exemption under 720 ILCS 5/ 14-3( i) .

49. On January 12'h. 201 L Plaintiff's trial on the Eavesdropping charges commenced.50 . On January 13. 20 II. Mrs. Pamela Taylor, testifying for the state, stated that she willingly participated

in the conversations. Mrs . Laud in, also testifying for the state , stated that she deleted the audiotape ofthe arraignment's hearing to preserve memory in her computer. The FBI agent, Dana DePooter,testifying for the defense. acknowledged receiving an email complaint from Plaintiff regarding thetampered court transcript.

51. On January 14' , 20 ll, Judge Brosnahan. with a jury hung at 7-5. declared a mistrial.52. On April ' . 2011. Judge Steven J. Goebel replaced Judge Mary Brosnahan by order of Chief Judge

Timothy C. Evans.53. On or about August of 2011 , Plaint iff tired her lawyer. Mr. Nick Albukerk, and became, again, ProSe54. On August 31 . 2011. Plaintiff. with the help of her friend, filed a motion for standby counsel or

electronic monitoring given that the maximum time allowed for her incarceration was up on October14' .2011.

55. On September 14' , 2011. Mr. Robet1 Podlasek requested that Plaintiff's eavesdropping legal file2 behanded to him in order to redact social security and credit card numbers. Judge Joyce, presiding forJudge Goebel. upon Plaintiff's objection , refused to make such a ruling.

56. On September 15th, 2011. Judge David K. Frankland of Sangamon County declared the Eavesdroppinglaw unconstitutional in People v Allison No. 2009-CF-50.

57. On September 20' , 20 II. Mr. Robert Pod Iasek renewed his request in front of Judge Goebel to acquirePlaintiff's eavesdropping legal file . Plaintiff objected anew but Judge Goebel overruled and handedPlaintiffs eavesdropping file to Mr. Podlasek \.Vith instructions that third pat1ies social security andcredit card numbers be redacted . However, Mr. Pod Iasek used the opportunity to remove documentsfrom Plaintiffs eavesdropping file and ignored Judge Goebel s orders. For instance. Mr. Podlasekremoved police reports and various discovery documents pertaining to the eavesdropping case and leftcredit card and social security numbers un-redacted.

58. On September 20 1\ 20 II. and continuing thereafter, Judge Goebel s signed various court ordersallowing Plaintiff to make phone calls to her family oversea. The orders were ignored by Cook CountyJail's administration, although the calls \Vere at the expenses of Plaintiff.

r. Podlasek requested both the computer tampering and eavesdropping legal f iles. For the sake of th is case Pla intiff limits Mr. Pod Iasek srequest to that of the eavesdropping file .

7


10/21

59. On October 5' , 2 II. during argument on Plaintiff's electronic monitoring motion , Plaintiff told JudgeGoebel that any incarceration at the Cook County Jail past October 14'h, 2010, would beunconstitutional.

60. On October 13 ' , 2 II , Judge Goebel granted Plaintiff s motion for electronic monitoring and restrictedPlaintiff to movements pre-approved by either the court or the electronic monitoring program .

61. On October 20' 20 II Plaintiff was released from Cook County Jail and transferred to the electronicmonitoring program. This occurred a week after the lawful detention had expired .

62. On November I0' , 20 II Mr. Robert Podlasek motioned the court to revoke Plaintiff's bond stating thatPlaintiff made an unauthorized movement to her former lawyer and stole her own legal file while at thatlawyer 's office. Plaintiff requested leave to reply. AI hough said request was granted and Plaintiff wasgiven the opportunity to respond within four days, Mr. Podlasek. dissatisfied by the Judges decision.called the electronic monitoring program and requested that Plaintiff be put in custody right away.Unknown Cook County officers arrested Plaintiff without a judge's order or probable cause. Plaintiffwas sent back to jail.

63. On November 14 ' 2011, Judge Goebel reinstated Plaintiff's bond after reviewing all evidence. Thatsame day. while still in jail, Plaintiff filed her already typed motion to dismiss the eavesdroppingcharges on grounds of unconstitutionality.

64. On November 23 'd, 20 II, Plaintiff was released from the Cook County jail and transferred back to theelectronic monitoring program. Plaintiff spent more than 6 months on house arrest. She was releasedfrom the electronic monitoring program on June w . 2012.65. On November 30' , 2011 , Plaintiff filed an amended motion to dismiss the eavesdropping chargesagainst her.

66. On February 14' , 2012. Mr. Robert Pod Iasek filed his response to Plaintiff s amended motion todismiss .

67. On March 2 t. 2012, Judge Stanley Sacks of Cook County declared the Eavesdropping statuteunconstitutional in People v Drew I OCR00046.

68 . On March 6' , 2012. Mr. Robert Podlasek motioned the court to have Plaintiff's bond revoked allegingthat Plaintiff forged Dorothy Brown s signature and issued unauthorized subpoenas. Judge Goebel putthe case on recall and asked Plaintiff to present evidence against the forgery charges and to bring theresponses to the unauthorized subpoenas. After hearing both arguments, Judge Goebel found no forgeryand confiscated the subpoenas responses tendered by Plaintiff.

69. On March 19' 2012. Plaintiff argued her amended motion to dismiss and to declare the Eavesdroppingstatute unconstitutional.

8


11/21

70. On May 8 - 2012 the Lnited States Court Of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in CLU r 4/rare:: Nr.11-1286. ruled that the Illinois Eavesdropping statute violates substantive First Amendment and DueProcess Rights.

71. On June 19th. 2012 Judge Goebel heard arguments on the nev. ACL L 1. Almre::s ruling. After thearguments \\ere over. Judge Goebel dismissed Plaintiff"s eavesdropping case but omitted to do soaccording to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 18 . This rule prescribes hO\\ an Illinois Court ought to declarea statute unconstirutional.

72. On June 25 ' 20 12 Plaintiff motioned up her case to request an amended order in com pi iance \\ ithIllinois Supreme Court Rule 18. Judge Goebel granted Plaintiff's motion.

73. On July 26'". 2012, Judge Goebel oftlcially dismissed Plaintiff's eavesdropping charges in a mannerindicative of her innocence.

B The alicious Prosecution74. Mrs. Laurel Laudin deleted the audio-tape of the proceedings which \Vas crucial evidence in Plaintiff s

criminal case. Moreover. although Plaintiff made serious allegations of court transcripts being tamperedat the Official Court Reporters and there was tangible evidence to that effect, neither Mrs . Lisa Madigannor Mrs. Anita AlYarez nor Mrs. Marilyn Filishio opened an investigation into the matter. Instead Mrs.Madigan investigated Plaintiffs eavesdropping case as early as January 20 I 0 and Mrs . Alvarez's

investigation followed in March of 20 I0: \vhich investigations led to the unlav.ful arrest. incarcerationand prosecution of Plaintiff.

75. Theres a huge discrepancy between Cook County Sheriff Polices documents and those presented bythe Cook County State Attorney. Apparent ) . Pia inti was arrested because she supposedly threatened apublic official using the word SURPRISE . on her website. The psychological evaluation \vas lessabout Plaintiff's mental state but rather getting self-incriminatory statements using the influence of Dr.Markos. When that failed, Sgt. James Dillon, Investigators Antonio Rubino and Rich Lesiak and tv.oU.S. Marshalls continued the same line of questioning when Plaintiff\\as transferred to CIU. It s onlywhen they couldn t get the desired answers that the charges were \\ itched to eavesdropping. Mrs.Pamela Ta) lor helped in this by filing a criminal complaint that as never signed or S\\Orn.


12/21

76. After Plaintiff fired her lawyer. she needed to call her family to hire a new lawyer. However. though theCook County Jai 1 once granted a simi tar request. the jai I administration completely ignored Judge

Goebel's orders to let Plaintiff make oversea phone calls.77. Mr. Robert Podlasek violated Plaintiff's \\Ork-product and anorne;-client privileges when he acquired

Plaintitf's eavesdropping legal tile on the basis of a Supreme Court Rule that never existed. Mr.Pod Iasek also violated Plaintiff's Due Process Rights\\ hen he removed and redacted information hewasn't supposed to in Plaintiffs eavesdropping tile. Finally. Mr. Podlasek unlawfully asked CookCounty Sherriff to aJTest Plaintiff in November of 2 II although he didn't have probable cause andthere was no pending arrest warrant against Plaintiff.

78. On September 15 2 II . Judge David K. Frankland of Sangamon County declared the Eavesdroppinglaw unconstitutional. On March 2 d. 2012 Judge Stanley Sacks of Cook County made a similar ruling.On May 8 2012. the Seventh District Court of Appeals ruled that the Eavesdropping law violatedsubstantive First and Due Process Rights. However. neither Mrs. Lisa Madigan nor Mrs. Anita Alvareznor Mr. Roben Podlasek moved to dismiss Plaintill s eavesdropping case based on these rulings.

79. There have been numerous citing of employees at City Hall and at Chicago Tribune who did whatPlaintiff\'vas accused namely. recording phone conversations without the consent of all parties.Hovvever. neither Mrs . Madigan nor Mrs. Alvarez nor Mr. an nor Mr. Pod Iasek ever opened aninvestigation into the allegations. let alone prosecute City Hairs employees or Tribunes Reponers.

C. Plaintiff s Damages80. Plaintiff has suffered enormous injury as a direct and proximate result of the misconduct of

Defendants alleged in the preceding paragraphs. Plaintiff spent more than 2 months in jail andabout 6 months on house arrest for a crime of which she was completely innocent. Followingher \vrongfu l arrest. incarceration and house confinement. Pia inti was separated from herfamily and friends. lost all property and important academic and legal documents.

81. Plaintiff was wrongly condemned by individuals she came in contact with. which causedPlaintiff great anguish. shame and humiliation. Plaintiff's incarceration was lonely and arduous.Given the unfamiliar settings, she suffered daily reJections. humiliations and indignities .

10


13/21

82. In addition to these emotions, Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to further pursue hereducation and to live as a free citizen. Plaint iff also has an arrest record on the charges.

83 . Following her release from jail, Plain tiff has struggled to forget the humiliations and hardshipswhile in custody. She suffers constantly from the feeling that life s opportunities have beenstolen from her and has constant nightmares of being arrested and going back to jail on boguscharges .

84. Plaintiff must also live with lasting psychological damage caused by Defendants , who used avariety of traumatizing and coercive tactics to extract confessions from her in an anempt to useher words and website as self-incriminatory statements.

D olicies and ractices85. Defendants violated Plaintiff s Constitutional rights and otherwise injured her as a proximate of

their adherence to the following policies and practices:a. The Illinois Anorney General, Mrs. Lisa Madigan, The Cook County StateProsecutor, Mrs . Anita Alvarez, the Cook County h r r i f l Mr. Torn J Dart, showed adeliberate indifference to training their personnel in the light of the Eavesdroppingstatute; specifically its lack of a criminal mental state and its statutory exemption under720 ILCS 5/ 14-J(i) didn t stop Mr. Dm1s employees from arresting and incarceratingeavesdropping detainees. didn t stop Mrs. Alvarez s prosecutors from prosecuting at leastthree individuals and didn t stop Mrs. Madigan s employees from assisting andinvestigating eavesdropping cases.b. That deficiency in training caused the Plaintiff s unlawful arrest, incarcerationand prosecution. Furthermore, the unknown Cook County Sheriff Officers also showedtraining s deficient in November of 2011 , when they arrested Plaintiff without probablecause and an arrest warrant.c. Moreover, Mrs. Madigan and Mrs. Alvarez demonstrated a tacit acceptanceand/or authorization of this unconstitutional statute. Mrs . Madigan assisted the stateprosecutors in People v. Melongo and in People : Allison. Additionally. although theAllison s Court declared the eavesdropping statute unconstitutional on First andFouneenth Amendments grounds, neither Mrs. Madigan nor Mrs. Alvarez moved todismiss the still pending People Drew and People v Melongos cases.d The Official Court Reporters policy and practice permining court reporters todelete audio-tape of cou11 proceedings even if such tapings constitute crucial evidence indetermining the accuracy of transcripts greatly injured Plaintiff.


14/21

e Plaintiffs injury amounted to present a defense lacking the crucial evidence that\/\as the audio-tape of the challenged transcript. Moreover. the lack of that crucialevidence caused Plaintiff's unlawful arrest, incarceration and prosecution.

By enforcing such a policy and practice. Mrs. Filishio tacitly authorized violatingPlaintiff's Due Process Rights.

86. The above-described widespread practices and policies. so well-settled as to constitute de f ciopolicies at the Illinois Attorney General Office. at the Official Court Reporters. at the CookCounty Sheriff and at the Cook County State Attorney Office during the time period at issue.existed and thrived because Cook county, Cook County Sheriff, the Official Court Reportersand the Illinois Attorney General failed to address them.

OUNT42 U.S.C. 983 Due Process Fourteenth Amendment87. Plaintiff repeats andre-alleges paragraphs I through 86 as if fully set for1h herein.88. As described more fully above. all of the individual Defendants. while acting individually,

jointly and in conspiracy. as well as under color of law and with in the scope of theiremployment. deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional right to a fair trial.

89. In the manner described more fully above. Defendants used a statute that lacks a criminalmental state. deliberately ignored a statutory exemption. fabricated false reports . deletedevidence and ' iolated Plainti1l's ork-product and attorney-client privileges. therebymisleading and misdirecting the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff. Absent these misconducts, theprosecution of Plaintiff could not and would not have been pursued.

90. As a result ofthis deprivation of her constitutional right to a tair trial . Plaintiff suffered injuries.including. but not limited to , emotional distress. as is more fully alleged abO\ e.

91. The misconduct described in this Count \\as objectively unreasonable and \\as undenakenintentionally \\ith willful indifference to Plaintift s constitutional rights.

92. The misconducts described in this Count \vas undertaken pursuant to the policies and practicesof the Illinois Attorney General prosecutors and forensic experts. Cook County Sherriff Officersand investigators. Cook County State Attomey prosecutors and investigators. Official CourtReporters and was tacitly ratified by policy-makers for Cook County. Cook County Sherriff, theOfficial Colll1 Repo11ers and the Illinois Attorney General with tina I policymaking authorities.

2


15/21

COUNT II42 U.S.C. 1983 Conspiracy

93. Plaintiff repeats andre-alleges paragraphs I through 92 as if fully set forth herein.94. The individual Defendants reached an agreement amongst themseh es to falsely charge Plaintiff

with eavesdropping and to deprive Plaintiff of her Constitutional rights. a s described above.95. Each individual Defendant conspired. and continues to conspire. to use a statute lacking a

criminal mental state and to ignore a statu tory e. \.emption which. if considered. would have ledto Plaintiff's more timely dismissal of the false criminal charges as described above.

96. In this manner. the Defendants, acting in concert with other unknown co-conspirators, haveconspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by an unlav,ful means.

97. In furtherance of the conspirac: . each of the co -conspirators committed O\ el1 acts and wa s anothem ise \villful participant in joint acti\ il).

98. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions. Plaintiffs rights were violated. Shesuffered injuries. including, but not limited to. emotional distress. as is more fully allegedabove.

99. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness and recklessindifference to Plaintiffs rights.

100 The m i s ~ : o n d u c t s described in this Count as undertaken pursuant to the policies andpractices of the Illinois Attorney General prosecutors and forensic experts. Cook CountySherriff Officers and im estigators. Cook Count) State Attorney prosecutors and ill\estigawrs.Official Court Reporters and was tacitly ratified by policy-makers for Cook County. CookCounty Sherrif-T, the Official Court Reporters and the Illinois Attorney General with finalpol icymaking authorities.

COUNT HIt2 U.S.C. 1983 Equal Protection Fourteenth Amendment

101 PlaintitT repeats and re-al leges paragraphs I through 100 as if fully set forth herein.102 As described more fully above. City Hall's employees and Chicago Tribune's repot1ers recorded

phone conversations without the consent of all parties. However neither the I inois Attorney General.nor the Cook Co unty State Attorney. nor the Co unty Sherriff investigated. arrested. incarcerated orprosecuted said indi\ iduals.

103 Defendants Lisa Madigan. Anita Alvarez, Robe11 Podlasek. Julie Gunnigle. Investigator KateoHara, Tom J Dart. Sgt. James Dillon. Investigators Antonio Rubino and Rich Lesiak as well as the

13


16/21

unknown Cook County Sherriff singled out Plaintiff and unlawfully arrested, incarcerated andprosecuted Plaintiff whereby violating Plaintiff"s Equal protection Rights based on deep-seatedanimosity and vindictiveness stemming from the computer tampering case; in which Plaintiff turneddown three plea agreements, had a pending motion to dismiss based on unlawful acts of Mr. KyleFrench and Mr. Podlasek and created a highly-visited website, illinoiscorruption net depicting herwrongful prosecution.

l 04. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken \vith malice, willfulness andreckless indifference to Plaintiff"s rights .

105 . As a direct and proximate result ofthese Defendants' actions, Plaintiff's rights wereviolated. She suffered injuries, including, but not limited to. emotional distress, as is more fullyalleged above.

COUNT IV42 U.S.C. 1983 Unreasonable Seizure Fourth Amendment

106. Plaintiff repeats and re-a leges paragraphs l through I05 as if fully set forth herein.107. As described more fully above, in April of20 I0 Sgt. James Dillon, Investigators Antonio

Rubino , Rich Lesiak, Kate O'Hara and the unknown Cook County Sherriff officers unreasonably seizedPlaintiff in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In November of 20 l J.unknown Cook County Sherr tT Officers. following Mr. Podlasek s orders also unreasonable seizedPlaintiff in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

I08. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness andreckless indifference to Plaintiff"s rights.

109 . As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants actions, Plaintiff"s rights wereviolated. She suffered injuries, including, but not limited to emotional distress, as is more fullyalleged above.

COUNTY42 U.S.C. 1983 False Arrest And Imprisonment Fourth Amendment

110. Plaintiff repeats and re-a lieges paragraphs I through I09 as if fully set forth herein.111. As described more fully above. Mr. Robert Podlasek, Mrs. Julie Gunnigle. Mrs. Kate oHara Mr.

Tom Da1i, Sgt. James Dillon, Investigators Antonio Rubino. Rich Lesiak. and the unknown CookCounty Sherriff officers arrested and caused the confinement of Plaintiff without probable cause inviolation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

112. As described more fully above, Plaintiff stayed at the Cook County Jail for more than 20 months.remained an additional week in jail past her maximum lawful detention. was re-incarcerated for about 2

14


17/21

weeks in November of 2011 following an arrest without probable cause and warrant and was confinedfor more than six months at her house under electronic monitoring.

113. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness andreckless indifference to Plaintiff s rights . The above Defendants acted v ith the intention toconfine Plaintiff within fixed boundaries, the above Defendants actions directly or indirectlyresulted in Plaintiffs confinement, Plaintiff was aware of the confinement.

114. As a direct and proximate result of the above Defendants actions, Plaintiff s rights werevio lated. She suffered injuries, including, but not limited to , emotional distress. as is more fullyalleged above.

COUNT VI4 U.S.C. 1983 - Free Speech First Amendment

115. Plaint iff repeats and re-a leges paragraphs I through 4 as if fully set forth herein.116. As described more fully above, the Defendants, while acting individually, jointly and in

conspiracy, as well as under color of law and within the scope of their employment, deprivedPlaintiff of her constitutional right to free speech by prosecuting Plaintiff based on what sheposted on the il inoiscorruption.net website.

117. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness andreckless indifference to Plaintiff s rights.

118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff s rights were violated .She suffered injuries. including. but not limited to, emotional distress, as is more fully allegedabove .

COUNT VII4 U.S.C. 1983 Freedom of Press First Amendment

119. Plaintiff repeats and re-a lieges paragraphs I through 8 as if fully set forth herein.120. As described more fully above, the Defendants , while acting individually, jointly and in

conspiracy. as well as under color of law and within the scope of their employment, deprivedPlaintiff of her constitutional right to freedom of press by targeting Plaintiff and thei inoiscorruprion.nel website.

121. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken ;vith malice. willfulness andreckless indifference to Plaintiff s rights.

122. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff s rights were \'iolated.She suffered injuries, including, but not limited to , emotional distress, as is more fully allegedabove .

5


18/21


19/21

132. As a direct and proximate result of the abO\ e Defendants actions. Plaintiff's rights \\ereviolated. She suffered injuries. including. but not limited to. emotional distress. as is more full:alleged above.

OUNTState Law Claim Civil Conspiracy

133. Plaintiff repeats and re-al leges paragraphs I through 32 as i ully set forth herein.13 t. As described more fully above. the Defendants. acting in concert \\ ith other unknO\\ n co-

conspirators. have conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unla\\ ful purpose b)unlawful means.

135 . In furtherance of the conspiracy. each of the co-conspirators committed overt acts andas an othem ise \\ illful participant in joint activity.

136. The misconduct described in this Count \\as undertaken \\ ith mal ice. \\ i lfulness andreckless indifference to Plaintiff's rights.

13 7. As a proximate result of the Defendants conspiracy. Plainri If's rights were violated. Shesuffered injuries, including. but not limited to. emotional distress, as is more fully allegedabove.

OUNT XIState Law Claim Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

138 . Plaintiff repeats and re-al leges paragraphs I through 13 7 as if full) set forth herein.139. The acts and conduct of Defendants as set forth abO\e \\ere extreme and outrageous. Defendantsintended to cause or were in reckless disregard of the probability that their conduct would cause severe

emotional distress to Plaintiff, as is more fully alleged above.140. The Defendants ' actions and conduct did directly and proximately cause severe emotional

distress to PlaintitT and thereb) constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress .14 . The misconduct described in this Count \"as undertaken with malice. \\illfulness and

reckless indifference to Plaintiff's rights.142 . As a proximate result of the Defendants actions. Plaintiff' s rights \\ere violated. She

suffered injuries, including. but not limited to, emotional distress. as is more fully allegedabove.

OUNT XIIState Law Claim Consumer Fraud and Deceptive usiness Practices

143. Pia inti repeats and re-al leges paragraphs I through 1- 2 as if fully set forth herein.

7


20/21

144 The Official Court Reporters office tampered ' ith Pia inti tf s transcript and deceiYed and misledPlaintiff by concealing, veil ing and misrepresenting the facts of the merchandise.

145 Mrs. Laurel Laudin, acting as an employee of the Official Court Reporters Office. deleted theoriginal audio-tape of the transcript to conceal and suppress the facts of the purchased merchandise.Mrs. Pamela Taylor. acting as an assistant administrator of the Official CoUJ1 Reporters office. stood b;Mrs. Laurel Laudin s actions.

146 The misconduct described in this Count \vas undertaken ith mal ice. wi fulness andreckless indifference to Plaintiirs rights .

147. As a proximate result of the Official Court Repo11ers Offices actions, Plaintiff's rights\vere violated . She suffered injuries. including. but not limited to. emotional distress. as is morefull) alleged abO\ e.

COUNT XState Law Claim Breach Of Fiduciarl Duty1 ~ 8 Plaintiffrepeats andre-alleges paragraphs I through 147 as if fully setl mh herein.149 As described more fully abO\ e. Dr. Markos and Plaintiff had a doctor-patient relationship during

and after the psychological evaluation. However. Dr. Markos used the psychological examination as amean to help the state prosecutors in Plaintiffs ongoing criminal investigation. In doing so. Dr. Markosabused Plaintiff's trust and violated the doctor-patient privilege he had \\ith her.

150 The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with mal ice , wi fulness andreckless indifference to Plaintiff's rights.

151 As a proximate result of Dr. Markos actions. Plaintiff's rights ' ere violated. She sutferedinjuries. including, but not limited to, emotional distress, as is more fully alleged above.

COUNT X VState Law Claim Responde t Superior

152 Plaintiff repeats and re-al leges paragraphs I through 151 as if fully set fonh herein .153 At all times relevant hereto. Del endants were members or agents of either the Illinois

Anorney General. or Cook County. or the Cook Counr: Sherriff or the Official Court Reporters.acting\\ ithin the scope of their employment and under color of law.

154 Defendants Illinois Attorney General Office, Cook County. Cook County Sherriff and theOfficial Court Rep011ers are liable as principals for all torts committed by their agents .

COUNT XVState Law Claim Indemnification

155 Plaintiff repeats and re-al leges paragraphs I through as if fully set forth herein .

18


21/21

156. Illinois Ia\\ provides that pub\ ic entities are directed to pa) any tort judgment fromcompensatory damages for hich employees are liable vvithin the scope of their employmentactivities.

157. At all times rele\ant hereto. Mrs . Anita Al\arez. Dr. Marthe\\ Markos. Mr. RobertPodla:.ek. Mrs. Julie Gunnigle and investigator Kate O Hare \\ere employees of Cook Countywho acted \\ithin the scope of their employment in committing the misconduct describedherein.

158. At all times rele\ant hereto. Mr. Tom J. Dart. Sgt. James Dillon. imestigatorsAntonioRubio and Rich Lesiak and the unknown Cook County Sherriff Officers were employees of theCook County Sherri f v ho acted with in the scope of their employment in committing themisconduct described herein.

159. At all rimes rele\ant hereto. Mrs. Maril.}n Filishio, Mrs. Pamela Ta) lor and Mrs. LaurelLaudin were employees of the Ofticial Coutt Reporters who acted within the scope of theiremplo) ment in commi tting the misconduct described herein.

160. At all times relevant hereto. Mrs. Lisa Madigan. Mr. Kyle French and Mrs. AmberHaqqani were employees of the Illinois Attorney General Oftlce who acted within the scope oftheir employment in committing the misconduct described herein.

WHEREFORE. Plaintiff Annabel K. Me Iongo respectfully requests that this Court enters judgment inher favor and against Defendants. awarding compensator: damages for the injuries that she has suffered.costs and reasonable attorneys fees. and puniti\e damages against each of the individual defendanb inthei r individual capacities: and for such further and additional relief as this Cou rt may deem appropriateand just.

Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

Annabel K. MelongoP.O Box 5658Chicago, IL 60680312-415-6632

JURY DEM ND

19

Respectfully submitted.By: Annabel K Melongo Pro Se

Documents

Motion to Recuse Appoint Prosecutor