Attorney David L. Freidberg's Legal Cases

Domestic violence

17 OP XXX59

Jul 25, 2018

OUTCOME: Order of Protection DENIED

My client, the Respondent, is the subject of an Order of Protection filed against him by his own mother. My client owned the property where they were both residing, in separate units, when he decided ... he wanted to sell the property. His mother refused to move and my client was forced to start eviction proceedings against her. In retaliation, and to stall the eviction process, his mother filed for this Order of Protection. Her attorney attempted to settle the matter but we refused based on the grounds that it would impact the eviction proceedings negatively towards my client. The matter was set for hearing. At the hearing I proceeded to question his mother, the Petitioner, about her actions towards my client AFTER the Order of Protection had been filed. Not only did she contact him numerous times via telephone (records presented at the hearing), but she also accosted the air conditioner repairman when he came to fix her air conditioning unit. The entire purpose of an Order of Protection is to prevent contact between the parties, which clearly she violated. After her testimony I asked the judge for a directed finding, which means that the Petitioner did not present enough evidence for the burden to shift to my client. The judge granted my motion, Order of Protection was denied and my client did not even have to testify on his behalf.

Domestic violence

17 DV 7XXX56

May 15, 2018

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

The matter began with the filing of an Order of Protection (OP) against my client by his ex-girlfriend. In the OP, she alleged that my client struck her on the buttocks multiple times while she was pr ... egnant with this child. Three weeks goes by until my client is somehow arrested at the courthouse while appearing on the OP matter. She waited well over 2 months to file any charges against him for domestic battery. He was brought up stairs to a criminal judge for bond to be set. After hearing the charges and actually watching the video of the incident (which is not customary at a bond hearing), the judge gave my client an I-Bond (which means he posts no money to be released) and commented that she couldn't see who is even in the video. A few months go by and we finally get this matter set for trial. At the trial the State shows the video while the "victim" narrates the action. I ask a few questions and once the State rests their case, I ask the judge for a directed finding - meaning that the State has not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and thus there is no reason for the defense to put on its side of the case. The judge agreed and made the same comment about not being able to see anyone in the video or who did what to whom. Not Guilty!

Domestic violence

17-XXXX02 Battery Charge

May 09, 2018

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

My client is a 70 year old man who worked as an X-Ray technician for a local hospital for the past 11 years with no issues whatsoever. One day this girl walks in for x-rays, follows all of the instruc ... tions, and then walks out and says my client tried to pull her pants down and look at her vagina. One might think, "why would she possibly make up something like this if it didn't happen?" Well, turns out that the "victim" hired a civil law firm to sue my client and the hospital based on her allegations. Thus, she has motive to lie for monetary gain. The State's Attorney offered court supervision for three (3) months, which is not a conviction and can be expunged two years after completion. That is a very fair offer but I advised my client not to take the offer as he would still have to enter a plea of guilty and that could be used against him in the civil action. He agreed, the matter was set for trial and my client was found NOT GUILTY!

Domestic violence

Default Order of Protection - Vacated

Feb 14, 2018

OUTCOME: Order vacated, petition dismissed and vacated

Client contacted me from out of state informing me that he has an order of protection which was entered against him back in 2016. He only found out about it after applying for new employment. I resea ... rched his case and confirmed that he never received notice or personal service of the Petition for an Order of Protection. I filed a Motion to Vacate the Default Order of Protection and the judge granted it and subsequently dismissed the entire matter and vacated all proceedings.

Criminal defense

17 OP 73XXX Order of Protection Denied

Dec 20, 2017

OUTCOME: Order of Protection Denied

This order of protection case was a bit more interesting. I represented the Respondent who had a prior dating relationship with the Petitioner. At some point during the relationship, the Petitioner ... began receiving numerous telephone calls and even person visits from strangers stating they received his information via online dating profile sites, mostly of the sexual variety. These profiles were not posted by the Petitioner. For some reason, the Petitioner decided that these false profiles were being created by my client. Additionally, someone put up flyers around the Petitioner's neighborhood making defamatory statements about him. Again, he blamed my client. The only issue that was a problem for my client is that he did meet with the Petitioner at the end of their relationship and apologized for his actions and stated that everything would stop. My client unfortunately also texted this apology to the Petitioner, which was presented at the hearing. The Petitioner's attorney make my client an offer: agree to a one year order of protection with an addendum, or agreement, that IF there were no violations of the Order, then after the one year period ended, they would agree to vacate the Order of Protection, thereby removing it from his criminal background. As my client was adamant that he did not do what he was accused of, he refused and the matter went to hearing. Everything went well - all of the evidence was presented by the Petitioner, which unfortunately for him, was purely circumstantial and coincidental, as he could not prove that it was my client who was falsifying profiles and posting flyers in his neighborhood. The judge did want to hear what my client was apologizing for exactly, and after his testimony, the judge ruled in our favor. The Order of Protection was DENIED and DISMISSED!

Criminal defense

Motion to Vacate UUW Granted

Dec 07, 2017

OUTCOME: Motion Granted

This was another Aguilar type of motion to vacate and dismiss a gun charge. In this matter, my client was convicted in 1993 for the misdemeanor offense of unlawful use of weapon. The conviction for t ... his older offense became an issue when my client was sentenced on a federal drug charge to the federal penitentiary for 35 years – I did not handle the federal matter. Because of this prior gun charge, he was given a level 44 under the federal sentencing guidelines. The prior gun charge enhanced his sentencing level by 12 points. By vacating this prior charge, his sentence could possibly be reduced by 13 years. In 2013, the case of People v. Aguilar, held that the unlawful use of weapons statute is unconstitutional, and as such, my client’s 1993 conviction should and has been vacated.

Criminal defense

17-19XXXX Battery

Oct 05, 2017

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

In this matter, my client is the Assistant Manager of a hotel located in downtown Chicago. The allegations were that while she was reprimanding an associate, she grabbed him by the shoulders, shook hi ... m violently and shoved him into a doorway, causing injury. There is no better defense to a charge of battery than having a video that depicts the entire incident, which the hotel had. After the complaining witness/victim testified, the State's Attorney played the video for the Court. The video clearly showed that my client did in fact touch the victim on the arm but in no fashion did she grab him or shove him. The Court found the testimony of the victim to be incredible and granted my motion for directed finding. Not Guilty!

Criminal defense

17 OP 72882 Order of Protection

Oct 04, 2017

OUTCOME: Order of Protection DENIED

This was a fairly simple one. The Respondent, my client, was being accused of stalking his neighbor. Before I get into the specifics of the stalking statute, the allegations were that: (1) my client ... accosted his neighbor because she was parking in a guest spot at their townhouse compound and as a result, his contractors were unable to park their vehicles, thus preventing them from working on my client's unit and charging him extra fees for a return trip. This was the reason for his visit to her unit. (2) she alleged that he was walking back and forth in front of her window, calling her out and making threats that she would be removed from the building. Stalking requires more than one event or occurrence under the statute. The Petitioner was unable to show that my client was stalking her in the first instance because all he was doing was trying to talk to her about the parking issue. Regarding the second allegation, the Petitioner was not even allowed to get into it as a result of the fact that her witness was never disclosed to the Respondent and she herself could not testify as to what occurred. The Court correctly ruled that the Order of Protection should be denied.

Criminal defense

15 CR 15555

Oct 03, 2017

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Good things come to those who wait apparently. Case started back in 2015 and my client was charged with aggravated battery with bodily harm and mob action, both felony charges. Four defendants were c ... harged with beating someone with a baseball bat, among other things. Two of the defendants pled guilty and another went to trial. After reviewing the evidence and speaking with the witnesses, on the day of trial the State's Attorney realized they could not meet their burden and dismissed all charges against my client!

Domestic violence

16 OP 78304

Jul 25, 2017

OUTCOME: Order of Protection DENIED

Another Order of Protection (OP) denied! As usual, I represented the Respondent in an OP pending at 555 W. Harrison in Chicago. In this matter, my client was accused of cyberstalking a woman he used ... to date. The problem with her case is that the alleged "stalking" came from posts he allegedly made on Instagram that she felt were directed towards her. The interesting issue with this is that Instagram is not like other social media sites. First, someone can only post pictures on Instagram with hashtags placed underneath the pictures. Second, you can only view the pictures and hashtags IF you decide to follow that poster or just view their page(s). In this case, the woman had to avail herself to those posts on purpose to even be able to see what was posted. I argued that even if my client was the person behind the posts, she had to make the effort to actually view the posts and even then, the posts were innocuous and her name was never even mentioned. I argued to the Court that if she was so traumatized by these posts, which occurred for over a month, why was she even looking at them? The judge agreed that the only stalking that was being performed, was by her!

David L. Freidberg's Legal Cases (93)

17 OP XXX59

17 DV 7XXX56

17-XXXX02 Battery Charge

Default Order of Protection - Vacated

17 OP 73XXX Order of Protection Denied

Motion to Vacate UUW Granted

17-19XXXX Battery

17 OP 72882 Order of Protection

15 CR 15555

16 OP 78304