IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS CRIMINAL DIVISION

State Of lllinois,

Plaintiff,v.

No. 10GR0809201 Judge Steven

J.

Goebel

Annabel K. MelongoDefendant,

Amended Motion To Declare Statute Unconstitutional And To DismissNow 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,.-rmattersofprotectedFederalrightsandtoenforcethose rights wherever necessary,since "the application of the First Amendment to the facts of aparticular 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 lllinoisConstitutions.

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 hasno 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 June181h,

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 pleadingnot 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, decidednot 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'sright 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 anindividual. That court unambiguously established that the filming of government officials engagedin 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 whichit 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 Processa.

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 processrequirements 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 filmingloud 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, anassistant attorney general, or a judge happened to be among the guests being filmed, the counts under the felony classification become Class1.

Though none of the above-mentioned examples impinged upon the privacies of the actorsinvolved, 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 innocentbehaviors 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, "thiscourt 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.2d755, 251 lll. Dec. 469 (2000); People v. Zaremba, 158 lll. 2d 36, 630N.

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 thepresumption 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 hadalso 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 qualifiedher 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 willingparticipant, 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 beenestablished, 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 isnot 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 aperson 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 andperiodicals, 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 institutionsthat 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 aright 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 governmentofficials, 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 whatpublic 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 CookCounty 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 courthearing 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 ofa 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 remainsthat 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 Violationa.

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 andintent 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 failsthe 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, thelack 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 ARetuui to the Article

tlhibit A

June

9,2010

The Save-A-Life Foundation Story: A Study in the Chicago WayBy 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 thatbecause 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 FishWhen 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 afterthe 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.

lLl1

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

ttII

/9/1

I

R:25

P\

IN THE CIRCUIT VS ANNABEL KMELONGO

COURT OF COOK COUNTY,

ILLTNOIS

Page 001Exhibit B

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLTNO]SNL]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 ASSTGNEDDEFENDANT 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 LlLe00/00/0000/00/0007/L6/OB

00/00/00O8/I3/OB

00/00/00

08/25/08 00/00/00 09/22/0800/00/00

IN THE CIRCUIT VS ANNABEL KMELONGO

COURT OF COOK COUNTY,

ILLINOfS

Page 002

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOISNTIMBER 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/o8oo/oo/oo L2/L7/08 oo/oo/ao oL/2L/09OO/OO/OO

IN THE CIRCUIT VS ANNABEL KMELONGO

COURT OF COOK COUNTY,

ILLINOIS

Page 003

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOISNUMBER 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 ORDERDEFENDANT 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/oo00/00/00

04/06/0900/00/00 oo/oo/00 00/00/00 00/00/00oA/oo/ooO3/L0/09O0/00/OO03

1,7L9

n/ae/oe

ASSTGNED

WARRANT

/ 0e /

09 r'lLe

ro srAND

00/00/00 03/37/0900/00/00

O4/I4/09 00/00/00

F0s/05/A9 00/00/00

2

IN THE CIRCUIT VS ANNABEL KMELONGO

COURT OF COOK COUNTY,

ILLINOIS

page

004

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ]LLINOISNUMBER 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/L7/0eFLOOD 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 F07/21/09 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 CALLEDFLOOD 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

r0/06/09oo/00/oo00/00/OO D2

10/07/a9

L0/01/09 1729oo/oo/00

2

rc/07/09 TRANSFERRED

KAZMIERSKI, JOSEPH G. JR.

MorroN To suBsTrrurE

JUDGE

00/00/00704

D[/t91700 1700

2

L0/07/09 NorrcE oF MorroN/FrLrNGSUBSTITUTE ,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 KMELONGO

COURT OF COOK COUNTY,

ILLINOfS

Page 005

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILL]NOISNUMBER 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/L4l09Lo/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/L4/09ro/2s/09oo/oo/oo00/00/00

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/L2/09oo/00/oo L2/08/09OO/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 L2/09/0e00/00/00L2

CASE

ASSTGNED

L705

/ ro / / r0 /

09 09

L'7

0r

r2/r6/Oe12

L'7Or17 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.tReceptionist: 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,, theSdFruill 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 lromthere-

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 toldme.,.. 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*lsoAnnabel's Phone is ringing..., Annabel. Annabel?Pame la:

Drr".tUr-r 15, &oo4Exhibit 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 talkabout. 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 lanyPamela: hm

Annabel: o like orangePamela: hmAnnabel : @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: yesPamela: a.as in apple Annabel: yes Pamela: t as in tom Annabel: yes Pamela: a as in apple Annabel: yesPamela: y as in yellow

Annabel: hmPamela: I as in long Annahel: hmPamela: o as in oven

1o

Annabel; yesP 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/

&eParnela'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 75Pameia: 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 toyor"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 youha'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,shouldlhavetocomethereandfileacomplaintushouldldoitthroughthewebsitelikeldidthelasttime. 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 FoundationMs. 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 wrote..From: Melongo Annabel Subject: Fw: Save A Life Foundation To: blugoose999@ yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2N9,7:27 PMI 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 To: James Flood

---

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 To: Melongo Annabel Sent: Tue, December B, 2009 11:48:29 AMRe: 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 willfind 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

wrote:

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

From: Melongo Annabel 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 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

azlil9/ll9:55P]\

DAI LY COPY PREF,-RED

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I I 10 11 12 13 1415

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: Couldme.

you raise your

right hand for

(wrrNESS

st^JoRN)

THE CoURT: Thank you.

Exhibit I-1

6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 241

PAMELA TAYLoR

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

0. A. a.name for

Good morni ng. Good morning.

would you please state your name and spe11 your rast

the record.

Erqibil36

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 d