Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:1473

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANNABEL K. MELONGO
Plaintiff,
v.
ASA ROBERT PODLASEK; ASA JULIE
GUNNIGLE; INVESTIGATOR KATE GARCIA
(NÉE
O’HARA)
(STAR
NO.
423);
INVESTIGATOR JAMES DILLON (STAR NO.
1068); INVESTIGATOR ANTONIO RUBINO
(STAR
NO. 5043); INVESTIGATOR RICH
LESIAK (STAR NO. 5000); DR. MATHEW S.
MARKOS; ASST. ATTY. GENERAL KYLE
FRENCH;
COOK
COUNTY;
RANDY
ROBERTS; SCHILLER PARK DET. WILLIAM
MARTIN; VILLAGE OF SCHILLER PARK;
CAROL SPIZZIRRI
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.13-CV-4924
Honorable Judge John Z. Lee
Magistrate Judge Sheila M. Finnegan

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Annabel K. Melongo, by and through the undersigned counsel
and Miller Shakman & Beem LLP, and for cause of action against the defendants, both jointly
and severally, respectfully states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

Eleven years ago, Plaintiff was arrested and charged with computer tampering

based on the unsupported, false allegations of her former employer, Defendant Carol Spizzirri.
2.

Defendant Spizzirri was the Founder and President of a now defunct non-profit

organization known as Save a Life Foundation (“SALF”). Defendant Spizzirri held herself out as
a certified nurse who began SALF after she lost her daughter in a fatal hit and run car accident.

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:1474

Defendant Spizzirri claimed that her daughter’s life would have been saved had she received
prompt emergency first aid at the scene of the accident. Based on this story, Defendant Spizzirri
created SALF with a purported mission of training emergency responders in life supporting first
aid.
3.

In and around Spring, 2006, Defendant Spizzirri and SALF came under scrutiny

for its questionable financial activities. Spizzirri was exposed as a serial fabricator who lied
about her credentials (she is not a certified nurse) and the underlying facts of her daughter’s
death (her daughter crashed her own car while under the influence of alcohol and did not die as a
result of not receiving first aid emergency care). Critically, serious questions were raised
regarding SALF’s use of nearly $9 million of state and federal funding.
4.

Around that time, SALF’s computer servers crashed, allegedly deleting hundreds

of financial records. Defendant Spizzirri falsely accused Plaintiff, her former employee, of
causing the deletion of SALF’s financial records. On information and belief, Defendant Spizzirri
herself was responsible for SALF’s computer crash and the resulting destruction of financial
records.
5.

Defendant Spizzirri used her influence and power with Illinois politicians,

including former Cook County State’s Attorney Richard Devine to embark on a ‘witch hunt’ of
Plaintiff and frame Plaintiff for computer tampering.
6.

Defendants Roberts, Martin, and French, as well as Defendants Podlasek and

Gunnigle, conducted no meaningful investigation of Spizzirri’s claims, ignored exculpatory
evidence, and falsely charged and prosecuted Plaintiff for the offense of computer tampering.
7.

On July 29, 2014, Plaintiff was exonerated of all computer tampering charges.

2

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:1475

8.

On April 13, 2010, while Plaintiff’s computer tampering charges pended in the

Circuit Court of Cook County, Plaintiff was arrested again without probable cause for
threatening a public official and for violating the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, struck down as
unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court, People v. Melongo, 2014 IL 114852 (March 20,
2014). See also, ACLU of Illinois v. Anita Alvarez, 679 F. 3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012).
9.

Plaintiff was accused of secretly recording three separate telephone conversations

she had with Pamela Taylor, a supervisor in the Official Court Reporters’ office of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Criminal Division and posting those conversations to her website
www.illinoiscorruption.net.
10.

At that time, Plaintiff’s website www.illinoiscorruption.net chronicled her efforts

to defend against criminal charges of computer tampering which she claimed were the product of
prosecutorial misconduct and political corruption. Plaintiff’s stated purpose in maintaining her
website is to expose corruption in the Cook County criminal justice system.
11.

Even though Defendants knew that Plaintiff’s conduct of recording Taylor was

protected under a statutory exemption of the Illinois Eavesdropping statute, Defendants arrested,
detained, and later maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff for violating the Eavesdropping Statute.
Defendants did so to retaliate against Plaintiff for exercising her First Amendment rights to free
speech and freedom of press. Additionally, Plaintiff was arrested for making allegedly
threatening statements on her website.
12.

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, and

Markos participated in Plaintiff’s arrest on April 13, 2010, despite recognizing that they lacked
probable cause to arrest her, either for eavesdropping or for threatening a public official.

3

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:1476

13.

Plaintiff’s charges for eavesdropping were dismissed in their entirety on July 26,

2012. However, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Cook County Jail for more than 20 months as a
result of the eavesdropping and tampering charges and spent an additional six (6) months on
house arrest before the dismissal of the charges.
14.

After eight years, 20 months of incarceration, two trials, and an appeal, Plaintiff

has been vindicated of all wrongdoing.
PARTIES
15.

Plaintiff Annabel Melongo was an adult resident citizen of Cook County, Illinois

at the time the original complaint was filed on July 10, 2013.
16.

On information and belief, Defendant Robert Podlasek is an adult resident of

Cook County, Illinois. At all times material hereto, Defendant Podlasek was a duly appointed
Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney and was acting under the color of state law. Podlasek is
sued individually.
17.

On information and belief, Defendant Julie Gunnigle was an adult resident of

Cook County, Illinois at the time the complaint was filed, and now resides in Arizona. At all
times material hereto, Defendant Gunnigle was a duly appointed Assistant Cook County State’s
Attorney and was acting under the color of state law. Gunnigle is sued individually.
18.

On information and belief, Kate Garcia (whose name was formerly Kate O’Hara)

is an adult resident of Cook County, Illinois. At all times material hereto, Defendant Garcia was
an investigator at the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office and was acting under the color of
state law. Garcia is sued individually and in her official capacity as an investigator at the Cook
County State’s Attorney’s Office.

4

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:1477

19.

On information and belief, Defendants Dillon, Rubino, and Lesiak are adult

residents of Cook County, Illinois. At all times material hereto, Defendants Dillon, Rubino, and
Lesiak were duly appointed members of the Cook County Sheriff’s Department and were acting
by virtue of their position as law enforcement officers and under color of state law. They are
sued in their individual and official capacities as officers of the Cook County Sheriff’s
Department.
20.

On information and belief, Defendant Kyle French is an adult resident of

Maryland. At all times material hereto, Defendant French was a duly appointed Assistant Illinois
Attorney General and was acting under color of state law. French is sued individually.
21.

On information and belief, Dr. Mathew S. Markos is an adult resident of Cook

County, Illinois. At all times material hereto, Dr. Markos was the director of Forensic Clinical
Services at the Circuit Court of Cook County and was acting in a law enforcement capacity and
under color of state law. Markos is sued individually and in his official capacity.
22.

Cook County is a municipality chartered by the State of Illinois and as such is a

political subdivision of the State of Illinois and among its other functions operates and maintains
a law enforcement agency known as the Cook County Sheriff’s Department.
23.

On information and belief, Defendant Roberts is an adult resident of Cook

County, Illinois. At all times material hereto, Defendant Roberts was a duly appointed member
of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office and was acting by virtue of his position as a law
enforcement officer and under color of state law. He is sued in his individual capacity.
24.

On information and belief, Schiller Park Detective William Martin is an adult

resident of Cook County, Illinois. At all times material hereto, Defendant Martin was a duly
appointed member of the Schiller Park Police Department and was acting by virtue of his

5

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:1478

position as a law enforcement officer and under color of state law. Defendant Martin is sued in
his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Schiller Park Police Department.
25.

The Village of Schiller Park is a municipality chartered by the State of Illinois and

as such is a local public entity, and among its other functions operates and maintains a law
enforcement agency known as the Schiller Park Police Department.
26.

On information and belief, Carol Spizzirri is an adult resident of San Marcos,

California. She was the Founder and President of the Save a Life Foundation (“SALF”).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
27.

Each and all acts of defendants, other than Defendant Spizzirri, were performed

under the color and pretense of the Constitutions, statutes and ordinances, regulations, customs,
and usages of the United States of America, the State of Illinois, the County of Cook, and under
the authority of their office as law enforcement officers for Cook County, Illinois.
28.

The incidents which give rise to this cause of action occurred within this

jurisdiction and within two years of the filing of this Complaint.
29.

Venue is proper in this venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as all the defendants

are residents of this district and/or all the acts or omissions which give rise to this cause of action
occurred within this district.
30.

Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,

28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3)(4) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff further invokes the pendent and
supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide claims arising under state law pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

6

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:1479

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, each and every paragraph contained in this
Third Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) and by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof
as if fully set forth herein:
31.

On October 31, 2006, Plaintiff Melongo was charged with two (2) counts of

Computer Tampering under 720 ILCS 5/16-D-3(a)(3). The information alleged that Plaintiff
forwarded an email belonging to Spizzirri to herself, and that she remotely deleted files, mostly
financial, that belonged to the Save-A-Life Foundation (“SALF”), a now defunct non-profit
organization with ties to numerous prominent Cook County and Illinois politicians.
32.

Founded in 1993 by Defendant Spizzirri, SALF’s mission was to pass and help to

implement legislation nationwide that would require training in first aid and cardiopulmonary
resuscitation for police, firefighters, teachers, public safety workers, and emergency dispatchers.
SALF was a member organization of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and received
nearly $9 million in federal and state funding during its existence.
33.

Defendant Spizzirri cultivated relationships with prominent politicians to advance

SALF and gain access to state and federal funding. By way of example, United States Secretary
of Education Arne Duncan was a prominent supporter of SALF when he was CEO of the
Chicago Public Schools. Dick Durbin, one of the highest ranking senators in the United States
Senate was one of SALF’s strongest supporters. Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky
sponsored a Congressional Budget earmark for SALF. Former U.S. Senator Republican Norm
Coleman sponsored a bill that would have awarded SALF millions if it had passed, and in 2006
the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted the Community Response Systems Initiative Resolution,
committing their support to SALF.

7

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:1480

34.

However, since November of 2006, SALF has been the subject of dozens of

news/investigative reports that exposed SALF’s founder Defendant Carol Spizzirri as a serial
fabricator and questioned the organization’s claims, practices, and finances. To date, the greater
than $9 million received by SALF in state and federal funds remains unaccounted for.
Meanwhile, Defendant Spizzirri has relocated to California, avoiding further scrutiny of her
conduct while operating SALF.
35.

The Illinois Attorney General, Charitable Trust Bureau represented that there was

an investigation into SALF’s activities. However, to date, no civil or criminal action has been
brought against Defendant Spizzirri.
36.

In and around mid-2006, Defendant Spizzirri became aware that SALF’s financial

activities were coming under scrutiny and that her financial activities as the President of SALF
might be examined. In fact, in November, 2006, Reporter Chuck Goudie from ABC News
Chicago aired a series of investigative reports that discredited Defendant Spizzirri and her
organization.
37.

In Spring, 2006, knowing SALF’s financial record might come under review,

Defendant Spizzirri falsely accused Plaintiff of remotely deleting financial files from SALF
servers, claiming that Plaintiff was angry at Spizzirri for terminating her. Defendant Spizzirri
contacted the Illinois Attorney General’s office and reached out directly to her personal friend
Cook County State’s Attorney, Richard Devine, demanding that criminal charges be brought
against Plaintiff.
38.

On information and belief, Defendant Spizzirri herself caused the destruction of

SALF’s financial records and then fabricated a narrative accusing Plaintiff of tampering with the
SALF servers and causing the destruction of hundreds of financial records. Using her power,

8

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:1481

influence, and relationships, Defendant Spizzirri embarked on a “witch hunt” to have Plaintiff
prosecuted for the offense of computer tampering all while diverting attention away from her
own misconduct and questionable financial dealings.
39.

Specifically, Defendant Spizzirri falsely claimed that Plaintiff had unlawfully

accessed Spizzirri’s email account and forwarded emails from Spizzirri’s account to Plaintiff’s
Yahoo email address. In truth, Spizzirri herself, or someone else, forwarded the emails.
40.

On information and belief, Spizzirri accused Plaintiff of accessing her email

account and destroying computer files in an attempt to paint Melongo as a bitter computer hack
whose goal was to retaliate against her former employer by destroying financial records.
Defendant Spizzirri also falsely accused Plaintiff of remotely accessing SALF’s servers,
changing passwords, deleting financial files, and even stealing SALF’s credit card numbers for
the purpose of making purchases.
41.

On information and belief, with a directive from the Cook County State’s

Attorney, Richard Devine, Defendant Cook County Investigator Randy Roberts along with
Defendant Kyle French and Defendant Martin accepted Defendant Spizzirri’s fabricated theory
that Plaintiff had accessed SALF’s servers and destroyed hundreds of financial records with no
meaningful investigation. Indeed, these Defendants – and the other Defendants who later became
involved, including Defendants Podlasek and Gunnigle – ignored ample exculpatory evidence
showing that Plaintiff had no ability to access SALF’s servers and could not have committed the
offense of computer tampering.
42.

No factual basis existed to support a finding of probable cause that Plaintiff had

committed an act of computer tampering. Notwithstanding, Defendants Roberts, Martin and
French effectuated a search of Plaintiff’s apartment, arrested Plaintiff, and initiated computer

9

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:1482

tampering charges against her.
43.

The Illinois Attorney General’s Office conducted an in-depth forensic analysis of

Plaintiff’s computer which resulted in a report hundreds of pages in length. Testimony from the
Forensic Expert revealed that no evidence derived from Plaintiff’s computer showed that
Plaintiff had accessed Defendant Spizzirri’s emails or the SALF servers, let alone caused those
servers to crash or caused the destruction of hundreds of financial records.
44.

Despite this stunning absence of evidence, Defendants Roberts, French, Podlasek,

Gunnigle, and Martin continued to pursue criminal charges against Plaintiff.
45.

Although the initial tampering charges were dismissed on January 10, 2007, the

State (through Defendant Podlasek) indicted Plaintiff on three counts of computer tampering on
January 17, 2007, based on perjured testimony of Defendant Martin. The State superseded
Plaintiff’s original indictment with a new indictment on May 28, 2008.
46.

The report of proceedings reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel appeared in court and

entered a plea of not guilty to the superseding indictment on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not
indicate on the record that she understood the charges and the court directed all communication
to her attorney - even referring to Plaintiff in the third person. However, at the conclusion of the
proceeding the court inquired about Plaintiff’s bond:
The Court:

There was some alleged deficiencies in the first indictment that
Counsel talked about, ‘07 nolle pros case, superseded by 08-10502.
Did she have a cash bond on that, or what kind of bond was she out
on?

The Defendant:

I-bond.

The Court:

I-bond.

10

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:1483

47.

The isolated “I-Bond” statement allegedly uttered by “The Defendant” is the only

indication that Plaintiff was present in court on June 18, 2008. Indeed, the docket sheet, the half
sheet, the judge’s notes, and the court call sheet all indicate that Plaintiff was not present in court
that day and consequently was not arraigned.
48.

After reviewing the report of proceedings from the June 18, 2008 court date,

Plaintiff believed that her transcript was tampered and consequently contacted the office of the
Official Court Reporters and spoke with Official Court Reporter Laurel Laudien who purportedly
transcribed the proceedings. Plaintiff told Laudien that she was not present at the June 18, 2008
proceedings and questioned her as to why the transcript suggested she was. Ms. Laudien denied
any inaccuracies in the transcript and eventually hung up the phone.
49.

Laudien later admitted that she destroyed the audio recording of the June 18, 2008

court proceedings which would have proved that Plaintiff was not present at the arraignment.
50.

On December 10, 2009, Pamela Taylor, the supervisor of the Official Court

Reporters’ office contacted Plaintiff and admonished her not to contact Ms. Laudien again.
Irritated, Plaintiff hung up the phone. Taylor called Plaintiff back a second time and left a
message on her voice mail directing all conversations about the June 18, 2008 transcript to
herself by forbidding Plaintiff to talk to anybody else in her office about that tampered transcript.
51.

Later that day, Plaintiff complied with Taylor’s instructions and called her to

question and discuss the accuracy of the June 18, 2008 transcript. Plaintiff recorded the
conversation. Plaintiff recorded additional conversations with Taylor on December 15 and
December 16, 2009.
52.

Plaintiff recorded her conversations with Taylor in an effort to gather evidence to

prove that she was not actually present for the June 18, 2008 court date where she was allegedly

11

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:1484

arraigned on a superseding computer tampering indictment. In doing so, Plaintiff intended to
prove a crime; namely that the court reporter fabricated the report of proceedings when she
indicated that Defendant was present in open court and later destroyed the audio tape that would
have proved that fabrication.
53.

In

November,

2009,

Plaintiff

created

a

website

known

as

www.illinoiscorruption.net to chronicle her efforts at defending against the computer tampering
charges that she claimed were instituted without probable cause and as a result of political
pandering. On her website, Plaintiff states that she launched the site in an attempt to bring public
attention to the abuses of the criminal justice system in Illinois.
54.

On December 17, 2009, Plaintiff posted her conversations with Taylor on her

website www.illinoiscorruption.net. Plaintiff noted that the recording of her conversations with
Taylor was protected by 720 ILCS 5/14-3(I), an exemption to the Illinois Eavesdropping statute
that permits the secretive recording of conversations to prove a crime under reasonable
suspicion.
55.

Plaintiff also contacted the FBI to report her belief that the June 18, 2008

transcripts were tampered, falsified or doctored. FBI agent Dana DePooter testified under oath
that she received an email from Plaintiff complaining that the June 18, 2008 transcript had been
tampered with or doctored.
56.

In or around January 2010, Defendant French of the Illinois Attorney General’s

office began investigating Plaintiff’s website and instructed a Senior Computer Evidence
Recovery Technician, Amber Haqqani, to capture the website for investigative purposes. On
information and belief, French also instructed the technician to monitor Plaintiff’s website.

12

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:1485

57.

On January 8, 2010, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a motion to dismiss the

computer tampering charges on the grounds that the State suborned perjury from its witnesses
during the grand jury proceedings that resulted in her indictment.
58.

On March 3, 2010, the date on which Plaintiff was scheduled to argue her motion

to dismiss the charges, Defendants French, Podlasek, and Gunnigle moved to have Plaintiff
psychologically examined (“BCX”) to determine her fitness to stand trial and to represent
herself, despite the fact that no evidence suggested that Plaintiff suffered from any mental health
issues or that she did not understand the charges against her or could not assist in her own
defense.
59.

Thereafter, Plaintiff posted on her website that “Annabel has a big surprise in

store for the court in its attempt to push her out of the case by pretending that she is
psychologically unbalanced. The surprise will be known on April 14, 2010.”
60.

On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff submitted to a psychological exam to be conducted

by Defendant Markos. On information and belief, at or around the time that Plaintiff was
undergoing the evaluation, Defendants Podlasek and Gunnigle contacted Defendant Dillon or an
unknown Cook County officer and instructed him or her to arrest Plaintiff because of the
“inappropriate” “surprise” message posted on her website. Plaintiff explained to Dr. Markos that
the surprise which she referred to was her hiring of a new attorney.
61.

As a result of this direction, unknown Cook County Correctional officers were

dispatched to the Criminal Court facility where they interrupted Plaintiff’s evaluation by
Defendant Markos and asked to speak with Defendant Markos privately.
62.

After leaving the room for a short period, Defendant Markos returned and began

questioning Plaintiff extensively about her website and her entries on the website, including the

13

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:1486

“surprise” post. Markos attempted to elicit incriminating responses from Plaintiff during this socalled psychological exam about her website.
63.

Immediately after the evaluation, Plaintiff stepped outside Defendant Markos’

office and was arrested by unknown Cook County Sheriff officers and Defendant Dillon and
transferred to the Cook County Central Intelligence Unit (“CIU”). Plaintiff was arrested for
allegedly threatening a public official.
64.

On information and belief, Plaintiff was interrogated by Defendants Dillon,

Lesiak, and Rubino regarding her website and Plaintiff asserted her right to counsel. Defendants
Dillon, Lesiak, and Rubino had no probable cause to detain Plaintiff for threatening a public
official, but notwithstanding the lack of probable cause, Defendants Dillon, Lesiak and Rubino
arrested and detained Plaintiff.

On information and belief, they did so at the behest of

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, and French, and with the involvement of Defendant Garcia.
Defendants French, Podlasek, Gunnigle, and Garcia were actively investigating the case,
including taking action to subpoena the website’s records.
65.

The State abandoned its threatening of a public official charge, and on April 13,

2010, a complaint was filed against Plaintiff for violating the Illinois Eavesdropping statute when
she recorded her conversations with Pamela Taylor and posted those conversations on her
website. Although the alleged complainant on the Eavesdropping charges was Pamela Taylor,
the complaint itself does not bear her signature.
66.

No probable cause existed to justify arresting Plaintiff for threatening a public

official. No probable cause existed to justify the eavesdropping charges where Plaintiff recorded
her conversations with Taylor for the purpose of establishing that the Court Reporters’ office had
falsified transcripts that erroneously suggested that Plaintiff had been arraigned on a superseding

14

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:1487

indictment when, in fact, she was not even present in court when the alleged arraignment took
place. Indeed, Plaintiff herself reported the crime committed by the court reporter to the F.B.I.
and published the recordings on her website.
67.

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, French, Rubino, Lesiak, Dillon and Garcia

singled out Plaintiff for prosecution under the eavesdropping statute despite knowing that a
statutory exemption applied to Plaintiff (or being charged with such knowledge). Defendants
arrested Plaintiff and instituted charges against her purely out of vindictiveness and retaliation.
68.

Additionally, City Hall employees and Chicago Tribune reporters regularly

recorded conversations without the consent of all parties. Despite having knowledge of these
violations of the eavesdropping statute, neither the Illinois Attorney General, nor the Cook
County State’s Attorney, nor the Cook County Sheriff’s office investigated, arrested, and
prosecuted these violators.
69.

Despite an absence of probable cause to charge Plaintiff under the Illinois

Eavesdropping Statute, Defendant Garcia, at the instruction of Defendants Podlasek and
Gunnigle, obtained a search warrant to search Plaintiff’s home.
70.

On April 14, 2010, Plaintiff appeared in bond court and her bond was set at

$30,000D Bond. But on April 20, 2010, at the request of Defendants French, Podlasek and
Gunnigle, Judge Mary Brosnahan raised Plaintiff’s bond to $500,000D bond.
71.

On April 27, 2010, Plaintiff was indicted for three (3) counts of recording phone

conversations under 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1), and three (3) counts of publishing said conversations
on Plaintiff’s website www.illinoiscorruption.net.
72.

On May 5, 2010, Judge Brosnahan reduced Plaintiff’s bond to $300,000D bond.

Unable to make bond, Plaintiff was incarcerated for a total of more than 20 months in the Cook

15

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:1488

County Jail. During her incarceration, Plaintiff exercised due diligence in attempting to learn the
basis for her arrest and determine the individuals responsible for that wrongful arrest.
73.

Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the eavesdropping charges on December 13,

2010 which was denied by Judge Brosnahan.
74.

On January 12, 2011, Plaintiff’s trial on the eavesdropping charges commenced.

75.

On January 14, 2011, Judge Brosnahan declared a mistrial because the jury was

unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the charges.
76.

On April 11, 2011, Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans reassigned Plaintiff’s cases to

the Honorable Judge Steven J. Goebel.
77.

Thereafter, Plaintiff terminated her attorney and proceeded pro se. Plaintiff

remained incarcerated.
78.

On September 14, 2011, Judge David K. Frankland of Sangamon County declared

the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute unconstitutional. People v. Allison, 2009-CF-50.
79.

On September 20, 2011, ASA Podlasek moved before Judge Goebel to confiscate

Plaintiff’s legal files related to the computer tampering and eavesdropping charges allegedly for
the purpose of redacting third-party social security numbers and credit card numbers. Judge
Goebel granted ASA Podlasek’s motion and ordered Plaintiff’s former attorney to hand over her
legal files to ASA Podlasek. ASA Podlasek demanded that Plaintiff relinquish both her case file
on the eavesdropping charges and the computer tampering charges.
80.

ASA Podlasek removed various documents from Plaintiff’s file, including police

reports and other memoranda critical to her defense.

16

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:1489

81.

On Plaintiff’s motion, Judge Goebel released Plaintiff from the Cook County Jail

and the Cook County Sheriff placed her in the electronic monitoring program on October 20,
2011 - a week after the maximum sentence for the offense of eavesdropping had expired.
82.

On November 10, 2011, Defendant Podlasek moved before Judge Goebel to

revoke Plaintiff’s bond, alleging that she had made an unauthorized movement to her former
attorney’s office and “stole” her own legal file. The Court allowed Plaintiff to stay at liberty and
to respond in writing to Defendant’s motion. Notwithstanding the Court’s order, Defendant
Podlasek contacted the electronic monitoring program and instructed unknown Cook County
sheriff’s officers to arrest Plaintiff.
83.

Plaintiff was imprisoned again until November 23, 2011 when Judge Goebel

reinstated Plaintiff’s bond and recommitted her to the electronic monitoring program.
84.

On November 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended motion to dismiss the

eavesdropping charges.
85.

On March 2, 2012, Circuit Court of Cook County Judge Stanley Sacks declared

the Illinois Eavesdropping statute unconstitutional. People v. Drew, 10 CR 00046.
86.

On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff argued her motion to dismiss the eavesdropping

charges.
87.

On May 8, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

declared the Illinois Eavesdropping statute unconstitutional in ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F. 3d 582
(7th Cir. 2012).
88.

On June 19, 2012, Judge Goebel granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and on

July 26, 2012, officially dismissed the eavesdropping charges.

17

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:1490

89.

On July 28, 2014 - eight years after Plaintiff was charged with computer

tampering - the State of Illinois dismissed two of the counts without explanation. Specifically,
the State dismissed all charges related to allegations that Plaintiff had accessed the computer
servers of SALF and caused the deletion or destruction of data.
90.

However, the State proceeded to prosecute Plaintiff for unlawfully accessing

Defendant Spizzirri’s email account and for altering data by forwarding two emails to herself.
The parties picked a jury and the State put on its case in chief.
91.

A computer forensic analyst who previously worked for the Illinois Attorney

General and conducted a complete forensic analysis of Plaintiff’s computer testified that no
forensic evidence showed that Plaintiff had accessed Spizzirri’s email or servers.
92.

At the close of the State’s case, the defense moved for a directed finding and

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Joyce entered a directed finding of not guilty.
93.

After eight years since charges were originally brought, approximately two of

which were spent in custody, Plaintiff was exonerated of all charges.
COUNT I
FEDERAL FALSE ARREST REGARDING APRIL 13, 2010 ARREST AGAINST
DEFENDANTS PODLASEK, GUNNIGLE, GARCIA, DILLON, RUBINO, LESIAK,
FRENCH, AND MARKOS
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, Paragraphs 1 to 93 of this Complaint and
by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
94.

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, and

Markos committed the above described actions and/or omissions under the color of law and by
virtue of their authority as law enforcement officers. They substantially deprived Plaintiff of her
clearly established rights, privileges, and immunities, guaranteed to her by the United States

18

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:1491

Constitution and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and deprived Plaintiff of rights guaranteed to
her under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unlawful
search and seizure and to be free from unlawful arrest and seizure of her person.
95.

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, and

Markos either arrested Plaintiff or participated in or directed her arrest.
96.

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, and

Markos lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.
97.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants

Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, and Markos in effectuating
Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated and Plaintiff sustained
substantial injuries.
COUNT II
FEDERAL FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION REGARDING APRIL 13, 2010
ARREST AGAINST DEFENDANTS PODLASEK, GUNNIGLE, GARCIA, DILLON,
RUBINO, LESIAK, FRENCH, AND MARKOS
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, Paragraphs 1 to 97 of this Complaint and
by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
98.

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, and

Markos committed the above described actions and/or omissions under the color of law and by
virtue of their authority as law enforcement officers. They substantially deprived Plaintiff of her
clearly established rights, privileges, and immunities, guaranteed to her by the United States
Constitution and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and deprived Plaintiff of rights guaranteed to
her under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

19

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:1492

99.

Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment by publicly

chronicling the State’s computer tampering prosecution against her on her website and by
publishing lawfully obtained taped conversations.
100.

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, and

Markos retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising her First Amendment rights to free speech and
freedom of the press by arresting Plaintiff and/or participating in or directing her arrest.
101.

Plaintiff’s activity protected under the First Amendment was a motivating factor

in the decision of Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, and
Markos to arrest Plaintiff on April 13, 2010.
102.

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, Markos,

Roberts, and Martin lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.
103.

As a direct and proximate result of the retaliatory acts of Defendants Podlasek,

Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, and Markos in effectuating Plaintiff’s
unlawful arrest, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated and Plaintiff sustained substantial
injuries.
COUNT III
FEDERAL FALSE ARREST REGARDING NOVEMBER 10, 2011 ARREST AGAINST
DEFENDANT PODLASEK
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, Paragraphs 1 to 103 of this Complaint and
by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
104.

Defendant Podlasek committed the above described actions and/or omissions

under the color of law and by virtue of his authority as a law enforcement officer. He
substantially deprived Plaintiff of her clearly established rights, privileges, and immunities,
guaranteed to her by the United States Constitution and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
20

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:1493

deprived Plaintiff of rights guaranteed to her under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution to be free from unlawful search and seizure and to be free from unlawful arrest and
seizure of her person.
105.

Defendant Podlasek either arrested Plaintiff or participated in her arrest on

November 10, 2011.
106.

Defendant Podlasek lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.

107.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendant Podlasek

in effectuating Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated and
Plaintiff sustained substantial injuries.
COUNT IV
FEDERAL UNLAWFUL PRETRIAL DETENTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
PODLASEK, GUNNIGLE, GARCIA, DILLON, RUBINO, LESIAK, FRENCH,
MARKOS, ROBERTS, AND MARTIN
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, Paragraphs 1 to 107 of this Complaint and
by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
108.

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, Markos,

Roberts, and Martin committed the above described actions and/or omissions under the color of
law and by virtue of their authority as law enforcement officers. They substantially deprived
Plaintiff of her clearly established rights, privileges, and immunities, guaranteed to her by the
United States Constitution and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and deprived Plaintiff of rights
guaranteed to her under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from
unlawful pretrial detention and to be free from unlawful seizure of her person.
109.

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, Markos,

Roberts, and Martin caused Plaintiff to be seized and detained prior to trial.

21

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:1494

110.

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, Markos,

Roberts, and Martin caused Plaintiff to be seized and detained with malice and for political
reasons, even though they lacked probable cause to seize and detain Plaintiff for computer
tampering and eavesdropping.
111.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants

Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, Markos, Roberts, Martin, in
effectuating Plaintiff’s unlawful seizure and detention, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were
violated and Plaintiff sustained substantial injuries.
COUNT V
FEDERAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHILLER PARK
POLICE DETECTIVE MARTIN
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, Paragraphs 1 to 111 of this Complaint and
by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
112.

Defendant Martin committed the above described actions and/or omissions under

the color of law and by virtue of his authority as a law enforcement officer. He substantially
deprived Plaintiff of her clearly established rights, privileges, and immunities, guaranteed to her
by the United States Constitution and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and deprived Plaintiff of
rights guaranteed to her under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
113.

Defendant Martin made false statements, including falsely stating that on July 20,

2006 Plaintiff confessed to accessing Defendant Spizzirri’s email and on information and belief
falsely stating that he received a report from “Mike” incriminating Plaintiff.
114.

Defendant Martin included these fabricated statements in a police report.

115.

Defendant Martin’s false statements resulted in Plaintiff’s indictment and

prosecution.
22

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:1495

116.

As a result of the fabricated statements, Plaintiff was deprived of her liberty.

117.

Absent the fabricated statements, Plaintiff would not have suffered the

deprivation of liberty.
118.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendant Martin,

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated and Plaintiff sustained substantial injuries.
COUNT VI
STATE LAW TORTS AGAINST DEFENDANTS PODLASEK,
GUNNIGLE, GARCIA, DILLON, RUBINO, LESIAK, FRENCH,
MARKOS, ROBERTS, MARTIN AND SPIZZIRRI
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, Paragraphs 1 to 118 of this Complaint and
by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
119.

The acts, omissions and conduct of Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, French,

Garcia, Dillon, Lesiak, Rubino, Markos, Roberts, Martin, and Spizzirri constitute false arrest,
false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois law.
120.

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions of

defendants, Plaintiff has been injured and damaged.
COUNT VII
AGAINST COOK COUNTY AND THE VILLAGE OF SCHILLER PARK
FOR INDEMNIFICATION
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, Paragraphs 1 to 120 of this Complaint and
by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
121.

Pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, 55 ILCS 5/4-6003, and/or 55 ILCS 5/5-1106,

COOK COUNTY is empowered and directed to pay any judgment for compensatory damages
(and any associated attorneys’ fees and costs) assessed against its employees or an independently
23

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:1496

elected Cook County officer, such as the Cook County Sheriff and its deputies, including
Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Roberts, Markos, Rubino, Lesiak, and Dillon, when
such persons are liable for conduct within the scope of their employment.
122.

Pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, 55 ILCS 5/4-6003, and/or 55 ILCS 5/5-1106,

THE VILLAGE OF SCHILLER PARK is empowered and directed to pay any judgment for
compensatory damages (and any associated attorneys’ fees and costs) assessed against its
employees, including Defendant Martin, when such person is liable for conduct within the scope
of his employment.
123.

The acts and/or omissions of Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Roberts,

Markos, Rubino, Lesiak, Dillon, and Martin described in this Complaint were committed in the
scope of their employment.
124.

In the event that a judgment for compensatory damages is entered against

Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Roberts, Markos, Rubino, Lesiak, and Dillon, COOK
COUNTY should be held liable to pay the judgment as well as the associated attorneys’ fees and
costs.
125.

In the event, that a judgment for compensatory damages is entered against

Defendant Martin, THE VILLAGE OF SCHILLER PARK should be held liable to pay the
judgment as well as the associated attorneys’ fees and costs.
COUNT VIII
PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS PODLASEK,
GUNNIGLE, GARCIA, DILLON, RUBINO, LESIAK,
FRENCH, MARKOS, ROBERTS, MARTIN, AND SPIZZIRRI
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, Paragraphs 1 to 125 of this Complaint and
by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.

24

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:1497

126.

The actions and/or omissions of defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon,

Rubino, Lesiak, French, Markos, Roberts, Martin, and Spizzirri were unlawful, conscience
shocking,

and

unconstitutional,

and

performed

maliciously,

recklessly,

fraudulently,

intentionally, willfully, wantonly, in bad faith, and in such a manner to entitle the Plaintiff to a
substantial award of punitive damages against Defendants.
DAMAGES
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, Paragraphs 1 to 126 of this Complaint and
by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
127.

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned actions and omissions of

the defendants, Plaintiff was injured and damaged. The damages for which Plaintiff seeks
compensation from the defendants, both jointly and severally, include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. emotional pain and suffering of a past, present, and future nature;
b. physical pain and suffering of a past, present, and future nature, including
damages resulting from a surgery Plaintiff underwent during her detention at
Cook County Jail and its lasting effects;
c. loss of enjoyment of life of a past, present, and future nature;
d. fright, fear, aggravation, humiliation, anxiety, and emotional distress of a past,
present, and future nature as a result of the injuries sustained as a result of the
illegal actions of defendants;
e. loss of earning capacity;
f. attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
g. punitive damages against applicable defendants;
25

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:1498

h. pre-and post-judgment interest;
i. preclusion of defendants Garcia, Dillon, Lesiak, and Rubino from serving as
police officers; and
j. all such relief, both general and specific, to which Plaintiff may be entitled to
under the premises.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, each and every paragraph contained in this
Complaint and by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff sues the defendants both jointly
and severally, for her personal injuries and prays for a judgment against the defendants for
compensatory damages solely in an amount to be determined by a jury as reasonable and for all
such further relief, both general and specific, to which she may be entitled under the premises.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff sues defendants Podlasek,
Gunnigle, Garcia, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, Markos, Roberts, Martin, Spizzirri, Cook
County, and the Village of Schiller Park in an amount solely to be determined by a jury as
reasonable and for all such further relief, both general and specific, to which she may be entitled
under the premises.
A JURY IS RESPECTFULLY DEMANDED TO TRY THE ISSUES ONCE JOINED.
Dated: January 23, 2018

ANNABEL K. MELONGO
By: /s/ Julia K. Schwartz
One of her attorneys

Michael L. Shakman
Daniel M. Feeney
William J. Katt
Julia K. Schwartz
Miller Shakman & Beem LLP
180 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3600
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Counsel for Plaintiff

26

 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 233 Filed: 01/23/18 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:1499

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Julia K. Schwartz, hereby certify that I caused the foregoing Third Amended Complaint
to be served on all counsel of record to matter 13 C 4924 via ECF Filing on January 23, 2018.

/s/ Julia K. Schwartz

27