so right good morning counsel and thank you for joining us here this morning just because i mean mchenry county and don't know my two parties on the the police report which she knew was false at the time she filed it and which cause the ensuing criminal prosecution of mr truly creepy for over one year for a crime he did not commit this many knows what was what was the ball false report that was made it was that men could check told the police that  that the plaintiffs were her th and that the rent that check and issue was for rent for the last month's rent out and that how does that issue how does that backed change anything bits occurred in this case they lived in her property for at least a month day old her rents because they were apparently paying  t to the bank and now it was her property and even though it was the settlement of a litigation between the parties it still was that the main amount six hundred dollars that represented almost the entire rant and two hundred and fifty three dollars and maybe some cents there represent a court cost how is that fact relevant  this statute requires intent to defraud and of of rental property that's the only type that element in the statute that could be applicable here to pay for rental property and she in the police report she states that she filed the terminations of the month to month lease with the bank on the day that the sale became final so there was never an established landlord tenant relationship between the defendant would link be checked and the plaintiffs the only landlord tenant relationship was between the plaintiffs and the bank and she never did supply a lease between the bank and your clients in this record we really your honor i said it's not attached to that to the complaints he does have it but he didn't find it in time to attach it but it does run it with the court eviction court case i mean the terminal letter which is attached states that  the month and month lease with the bank did run from the st of the month and your honor the she did claim march two thousand and twelve rent on the eviction court complaint the lease with the bank immediately you know there was no time period that which she was their landlord and they were her tenants because she severed it immediately on the day that the sale was final  that they could live there for free for the next thirty days did she know and she started the event she told them to be out yes by march th or sooner correct your honor what they told her what will we call what they after she found out it wasn't there yet mr that was a settlement that was reached in court that was not something she charged them that is what they agreed to isn't that correct she didn't charge that  issue was about to not on it no i'm sorry it was long she had the she could not get the check cashed in july and the warrant didn't issue until march that she made the best and she made the your honor she made the police report six months later six months after the occurrence she st made the police report which we get that is false she knew was false sadjadpour what you what happened and then what the evidence indicates that something happened at that time that somebody from west chicago did some  so who you know what happened during that period of time i don't know i don't know why she waited until six months to st make the police report however here on her i do think a reasonable jury could conclude that that was not in the normal course of business for every professional real estate person to wait six months to use it up wasn't she waiting for the funds to be deposited into the checking account so that the check could i may interrupt let me ask a more fundamental question how do we how do we charge the qubits acts with melissa's militias prosecution when they're not the prosecuting agency i mean state states attorneys are forever call victims this isn't your case it's the state's case they can't direct it they can't decide whether to charge the case they can't decide whether to dismiss the charges it's the state that's the prosecuting agency so how how does that claim own investigation the investigation that the hearst police there at the police report is attached and their statements matched exactly the knowingly false statements that when krycek told them francis versus franklin the u s supreme court case state holds that and forth for five or six illinois cases applying francis versus franklin to this deceptive practices act in the state of illinois holds that there must be corroborating facts in order for that inference to be made that one of the facts the fact that there was no money in the account before and there was no money in the account for months after you know your honor because are there are so many many many innocent non defrauding reasons why the fact of an insufficient funds check alone might be written in such an innocent mistakes that direct the court cause specifically addressing the dismissal of your count them all as the prosecution as you know very clearly one of the elements that has to be proven to sustain that charge or that count is the absence of probable cause to proceed now we have the federal southern circuit itself noting it as it is undisputed that the check was written knowing that it was not backed by sufficient funds issuing judge was entitled to and for an intent to defraud you the federal or state law service from executing in a rest warrant based on probable cause against the author of a bad check so are you telling us that the fact that the check was written at a time when there was not insufficient funds doesn't even establish probable cause is police report your honor link or the check is held as for under ellen versus berger and another potentially liable party under this and at the time that she filed the police report that check had bounced so she knew there was no money she wouldn't respond i don't intend to defraud that he wrote that he wrote the check for other reasons that it was not to pay for rental property that it was not to defraud it of use of rental property it was not a regular rent check it was the settlement for but if the action court case and she should have gone back to the court system to have it enforced not the police it was not a police matter because she knew we planned it adequate i'm sorry did you say something well i mean i did not perceive that was pled and if that's the point you're trying to make bets not her only option she could put that check in the bank and then get a notice that it bounced and then do it again and put it and get a notice that it bounced and do it again and get a notice that it bounced the fact remains that although your client says that this is normally done i think that was one of your statements this is normally done in business that he is accustomed to this is not normally done to issue a bad check for any reason there was there were some errors that that he that his his he wrote a letter to his own attorney explaining his intent with the check and it's an open question whether that letter was delivered to the checks attorney however your honor we did plead in the complaint at paragraph twenty seven item four this is a very strong fact gating that link should be checked knew that there was no intent to defraud that there were other purposes for writing the check that way and mr crease part and that's it states mr quis lawyer mr carter received the denial of its request to link check through her lawyer that she provided more documentation before mr crean would put funds on the check that specifically you know an open question of fact your honor that you know for i believe that should be for discovery here about what men could check knew that if she knew you know fa she knew enough she knew that they were not her tenants she severed the tenancy note with the day she bought the house she and yet she told the police that it was a check from her former tenant then that she tried to cash it again on july th i think and it bounces again i mean this could check kind of gave him the benefit of his supposed to business practice and then didn't achieve the benefit of her bargain and i'm having a hard time understanding the relevance of you know whether it was a settlement check or a rent check none of that's relevant to deceptive practices all that's relevant is i got a check and there's no money in the intent what was his intent if not to defraud you of the money you gave the check there was nothing in the checking account for months going forward what was his intent he wanted to he didn't think she was going to sign that dismissal order of the eviction case which was true she never did so he didn't understand the process mean he didn't i could have to say maybe his fiction court lawyer did not provide him the best counsel but there's there are letters the letters we attached and the facts lead in our paragraph twenty seven are sufficient to show that she knew practice a check does not meet this crime if it's written as a note if someone is intending to deposit funds to cover it consciously writes a check for more than the balance  and we we pled sufficient facts to show that actually both of those a combination of the st two it's sort of a note and intending to deposit funds to cover at once something else is done as well as  dispute about whether the debt is owed that's number six of paragraph twenty seven dollars i mean number four of our paragraph twenty seven in the complaint that she knew it was about something else it was not  at intent to defraud that's not was that was not his intention we have pled sufficient facts to show that she knew sufficient facts that she and she should have gone back to the fiction court where the settlement check came from for enforcement not to the police for this crime that he did not commit all right thank you very much i believe mr direct here you are going to go forward thing and and you know counsels and plaintiff is relying on the same set of operative facts here which he did which he did in his you know original nd amended complaint and those facts are actually copy and pasted into the appellate brief and that's what they're all relying upon your so nothing's changed you know in the in the last few years with regard to the average effects and you know getting just your justice hit right on the head here in regard to malicious prosecution there's there's never yet made that payment there's an outstanding judgment against my client to go in today and she could go see collection on that judgment for eight hundred and fifty three so no there has not been a release that justice but going forward in that regard she she seeks she seeks police intervention which is certainly well within her right mr qui is passes a bad check he knowingly passes a bad check he tells his attorney doesn't have good funds the best that  you missed miss cooper check has her knowledge of what's going on and she has no duty to to do anything in this case contrary to what counsel say simply on mr qui to make sure that he has the good funds from july to december those funds were never deposited into the account so that for six months my client attempts to cash this check the funds are never deposit as i stated now we're we're nine years later pick the funds are still not deposit for for council to sit here and say that mr quinn is not trying to defraud my client is an insult to the school but what is your response to mr peano's argument that  their investigation and then the city of elmhurst police department makes the determination of whether or not to bring that case forward to the state's attorney's office and then the state's attorney's office determines whether or not the church that case so it's not miss cooper check who brings that case it's alternately the state's attorney's office who brings that case miscue but checked only acted as an ordinary reasonable person would in the same similar search set of circumstances and sought police intervention when again she had no other recourse she was going to seek self help she was case and again for reasons this unbeknownst to anybody but i know mr pino in your argument tries to say well the state knew the and the state might have known this we don't know why the state dismissed that case we don't know why the state know it prosecutes all we know is that they were unwilling to move forward with the charge at that time and because of that the charges were dismissed he was never deemed innocent and therefore under illinois law under case law the case was never terminated in thief or only it was only dismissed why the case was dismissed is reckoned that that's correct just and they haven't done that all they did was a night and i implore you to take judicial notice of the same set of facts and the same believe it was a bunch of court proceedings and fact that all of the allegations made trespass in regard to this case occurred at least one day after the stay of the order possession of the property of lapsed so if you keep that point in mind justices we know and i don't want to beat a dead horse on this but we know that the qubit checks are the lawful owners of the property on that date they have an order of possession from the du page county court saying hey we own their property so for mr quinn to come in and say hey that that your client should have gone back to court to collect her she says or collect whatever we're going to call that's where and so why shouldn't your client have gone back to court to ask for the two additional days that are you know why you just let me let me rephrase that why shouldn't her client have gone back to court and ask for the two additional days that he needed in order to move because the floors were still wet on his new hall you know shouldn't he have news the a court as well to extend by two days absolutely he has every right to use the court system the same way that my clients do he chose not to be chose to show up at the property and be notes that my client he showed up and did not want to leave and again my client did what any prudent person would do she called the police she ignored her possession it's not to say that she threw him out on her own she called the police and and the police escorted him out if mr couey did not like how that went down because he was trespassing on the property it's tickets have no recourse to sue them for trust best he is the trespass or in this case and that's and that's a simple as it gets i mean there's no really go ther  are met and in this case again then cooper check in john to check and particularly in acted as a reasonable ordinary person would act none of her calling the police seeking intervention trying to cash the it's typically the sheriff's office like absolutely again i don't know that a layperson like like link would know that i think she called the local municipality and elmhurst came out and and did you know obviously did what they did just busted in there on a date that it was too didn't get time there was a agreement an agreed court order signed off by both parties and then stayed for several weeks in which they and my client still waited a day went to court excuse me went to court and then enforce the order so it would just as brent's point sure that you don't go back in sometimes if the person doesn't leave you call the sheriff or you go back to court but in this case i would say that it was different in that there was an agreed order client that the reason sufficient funds that is the very definition of being fraudulent he was he knew he was giving a jacked knowing that there were not funds in there and i would submit now later to give the check knowing that there were not adequate funds i would argue that he never intended to fund that check he was just going to give the check engine the agreement try and stay as long as he could and then get out his actions speak louder than his words so there is certainly he was not acting in good faith and the melissa prosecution case is completely frivolous she did what no or reasonable ordinary person would do in that situation when a check boxes for several several times over several months you call the police trust past once again my colleague covered that he had no right to be there my client had the legal right once again i'm not saying that it was through a court order even if this was true and agreed order with two sets of attorneys where they both agreed to sign and he didn't follow through what he did he knew what that brought this entire situation upon himself  had a valid he had disputes he had no intent to defraud she was not entitled to march rent which she claimed on the beach in court case so both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law that rent that  all that i'm sorry i'm on the phone now and i apologize but my my internet is unpredictable that is not what she charged th it ended it ended with an agreed order but it represented other forms of damage it's not to pay for rental property because she was not entitled to that for her rental property because and the state dropped the did the nally dismissal just after the two statuses for jury trial and under the rich both of the last and rich vs baldwin case that is sufficient that does show that the that the state did not have the evidence to proceed with the trial for this crime so that does meet the favorable terminations so i would ask the court to take judicial notice of those docket entries as well as the lesson rich v case for trespass trespassed is unlike malicious prosecution the deceptive practices act which cannot be interpreted as a strict liability crime by anyone the police or person making  sole remedy once they found it's an open question whether they knew the family was still going to be there when they entered the house but they do remain and they invited a rd party trespasser  unlawful it legal for the owners police to conduct an event sion they don't have the power to do that it's only the sheriff it's under the county's code on page fifty one dollars of my brief it's fifty five dollars i said seven  peaceable possession not the ownership that we go ownership of land and that's a very important public policy to uphold and i would ask the court to uphold that public policy and it is  claim march rent and so it cannot represent march rent it represents a different form of damages and so it can't be held to be rent for the purpose of the deceptive practices statute criminal law also she knew enough that it was that to negate her reason her probable cause to believe that it was he had intent to defraud her it was something else she knew that he was he had other questions about the settlement her remedy was to go back to the court not to the police because she knew he did not commit this crime when she made the police report six months later and it was she who decided to wait six months and i would submit to the court that a professional real estate person does not wait six months to resolve something and a reasonable jury could easily infer conclude that that was six months of stewing over the petty miss of them taking their washer and dryer and fridge rain out of the house which was there and so she decided to do this terrible thing accuse these th all right i apologize now i had to two audio sources and that made the echo thank you counsel for your arguments here today appreciate them and we will issue a decision in due course we have to recess for an additional argument that i may or may not be able to attend will see i often say that the chipmunk who's running the wheel that powers my  internet takes breaks when he doesn't tell me so that's why i lose my contact and i apologize for any inconvenience but thank you counsel and you are now released and we will stand in recess thank you