Mr. Godlewski,
Regarding your statement:
“Judge Shriver granted the Motion for Directed Verdict that Mr. Dunn’s attorneys requested. The court found that the June 15, 2022, incident could easily be considered under the circumstances and your situation to have been an act within the definition of “stalking.” However, the court did not find any of the other above-referenced incidents to have arisen to the level of an act of “stalking.””
I wanted to bring to your attention some nuances related to Judge Shriver’s recent decision in the matter involving Mr. Dunn. While your statement accurately captures the court’s ruling that the June 15, 2022, incident could be considered a single act within the definition of “stalking,” there are other noteworthy aspects discussed by the court that warrant inclusion for a comprehensive understanding.
During the proceedings, the court acknowledged the potential that I felt intimidated and threatened by the incident. Under Illinois law, the element of assault is created when a victim has reasonable fear that they were about to be harmed. Additionally, there was actual physical contact during the June 2022 incident. A person may be charged with the crime of battery under Illinois law if he or she makes actual physical contact with another individual with the intent to injure, provoke, or insult that person.
The issue I’m facing with the HOA lies in their belief that, as there was no finding of stalking for a plenary stalking no-contact order, which usually demands two incidents, they perceive it as no wrongdoing and categorize me as the troublemaker. I’m not asking you to assess whether there was an actual finding of assault and/or battery, but I do anticipate a clear presentation of the court’s specific statements concerning the incidents.
THE COURT: “The June 2022 incident certainly could be construed as an incident under the stalking no contact statute. You also have to take into context a reasonable person. Maybe he made him — intended them to be a threat. Maybe there was, hey, you know me I know you, why don’t you just move your truck? I don’t know. I wasn’t there but I’m going to take Mr. Weller’s word for it that he felt intimidated and threatened by that incident, that’s one incident.”
THE COURT: “Mr. Dunn approaching Mr. Weller under those circumstances I can appreciate the alarm. I would probably feel the same way if I’m sitting in my truck and somebody pounds on the door, I get that. But it also has to be a continued reasonable apprehension.”
THE COURT: “I certainly did not see your demeanor regarding the truck because we don’t have that video. I just urge caution and appreciate what Mr. Weller went through when you approached him in that manner. It sounds like he was very much startled and alarmed the way you initiated that contact. So I would urge you to just be cognizant of that.”
Please promptly revise your letter to enable my participation in a dispute resolution with the GLCA and GLTMA. I am seeking a cordial resolution to conclude this matter, as it has compelled me to visit the emergency room once again due to the stress and anxiety associated with it.