it at the order of that it's actually i don't want to say or a protection of the as technically of the statute that's a no contact no stopping proceeding because obviously they're not family members so in that that basis and there's a big dispute about whether or not he ever flip the bar embodies that there's no testimony by the way and i'm that he was singled out there was some kind of direct communication with  understanding that if he feels threatened then he suggests he has probable cause to go ahead and file has the patient we cite the hardened case make it very clear and he cited probable cause for purposes of malicious prosecution you have to look at the elements the only way you can defy a crime or in a sense is by looking at the elements and so he has to have had probable cause with regard to the elements and in this case there was no memo on there was any and there wasn't any two acts of stocking which is an element of this particular offense of no contact no stocking and there were put something on a facebook page it's not directed at any person and might be a comment about them but it's not directed at them that is not an act of stocking  rights are being infringed that constitutes special day images in other words what's going on here as over and above significantly over and above the fact that lamb had to get an attorney belt like he was arrested defend and also whether there was probable cause that the white is there was no probable cause for land while this action he may is subjectively felt like you know he was in some kind of jeopardy but he is the test is not subjective in this case regardless of how intense lana may have felt or may not of felt i think given  opportunity go before the jury i think we'll be able to show that what we have here is a series of mary in place officers they wound up is fighting and they don't like this guy and they're just piling on and that is exactly what happened when they filed these the orders of protection against them with regard to the special damages at a minimum he was under an injunction and if he affirmed should be affirmed for two reasons st it should be affirmed because as the trial court noted there was in fact probable cause for officer lanham to file his petition for stalking no contact order and in addition to that there was no special injury that term a special injury within the elements of malicious prosecution so as in other words get to suffer no special injury above and beyond the ordinary nuisance of having a suit filed against him addressing the st issue probable cause i think one thing that has happened in the briefing in this case is gaddis is sort of taken the position  that that lanham would have had to be in the position to prove his case of malicious prosecution to have probable cause at the time the petition is filed that is not the standard for some guidance there and that does tell us that stalking is a course of conduct directed at a specific person and he or she knows or should know that this course of conduct would cause  means two or more acts including but not limited to acts in which a respondent directly indirectly or through rd parties by any action method device or means follows monitors observes surveils or threatens a person birthplace school or place it will shift and what's interesting about that is this whole concept that things be directed to the person who seeking the petitions for stalking  contact order that the actions of the senator respond and that matter be directed to the petitioner is actually not true on or the elements of the statute it can involve things directed to rd parties as assisting officers with that this was very angry about that he talks about that in his deposition and so that was it that was a big driver of mr gatt is his behavior and everyone understood get his was angered by that that his head have it and this is undisputed had a habit of driving around through near the city of marion police department and obviously there's an issue about whether he's like looking at the individual officers or not but again he's identified a and threatens officer to maadi another off duty police officer who's there and then because he wants to have a word with them about about this false october th two thousand and seventeen arrest that's when the notebook is found that i think there's a lot of details that mr dunham is thrown in his analysis or under or paint a picture there that are not in fact in the record here and i don't think they're on the record anywhere but obviously lanham does come learn he's listed in the notebook yet is angry with him get this accuses him of lying in the notebook all this stuff is communicated obviously that strange to be found in someone's personal notebook particularly when you are so tangentially involved in this arrest then in addition to that obviously the holster the speed loaders that are found at the same time so there's a reasonable belief that th access to firearms in a potential it has got a potential to cause some physical harm lastly lanham really did fear for his life i mean really subjectively feared for his life and i know that the standard is a little bit more complicated than that but petition for stalking no contact order and so i mean if there's east you know obviously has a very real sincere belief that he is in some danger one thing that the trial court picked up on and i think it's important because a trial court did the kind of analyze this inside of a case that is sheds a little light on this it's called keefe versus aluminum company but the trial court focused also on the fact that the ex parte order was printed  so it's not directly analogous but i think it's important here that all those things that were in the petition or centrally admitted to be true by geddes and we kind of carefully went through that with him in his deposition and  the you know the trial court or the court that was handling the petition the original position the subject of the suit found that to be credible and worthy of entering ex parte or so i think when you look at all of that and all these things i'm talking about damages over gag and special damages are or are not what's at issue special injury as of the element and that is something beyond the usual expense and annoyance of having a lawsuit filed against you it and did the importance of this element is that this is the element that illinois courts have used to really determine and kind of uses the gatekeeper function to what they say maintaining the balance of societal interests in allowing people to reasonable access to courts while also keeping some discipline on people in terms of winning finally frivolous claims and so the question here really is what what what are the damages that get it's claimed well originally claimed he was defamed he had been he had lost reputation in the community he had lost business opportunities is that deposition he systematically it needed that none of that's actually true you know he had not lost his job he actually quit his job before the petition for no stalking or is stalking a contact order was with was filed it no one had ever told him that any of this this damage his reputation so we come to these kind of says well you know even if my guy doesn't have economic loss even if he did it hasn't suffered any kind of emotional mental injury no medical injury from all this no no real meaningful inconvenience he has this hypothetical st amendment interests that has been damaged the problem with that is we can't have there's no such thing as hypothetical damages there's no such thing as a hypothetical injury janice woulda had to have some intention to exercise some st amendment right that wasn't exercised if that's going to be his special injury here and he didn't have that if you will you know i very again  deposition you have all of gatiss his deposition i've heard carefully went through what do you claim are your damages what could you not do once this order was at reports ex parte order was ever and he didn't have anything the only thing that he said that he did differently was he found it very alarming how he got served with process in the matter any didn't go to his easter dinner his family easter dinner because this happened right around the time easter because he got served with process he also said that  he didn't like that people in the courthouse knew who he was well these are two things that are necessary incidents to filing any kind of lawsuit that is the usual annoyance and irritation of having a recognized that would support a malicious prosecution claim in cult awareness it was actually in a motion to dismiss a procedurally a little different there were twenty one dollars lawsuits filed against the plaintiffs cult awareness that they allege coordinated by church of scientology i was the defendant in that case obviously that's a little different than what we have here here we have one petition for a stalking no contact or ongoing disputes with city of marion police department they're persecuting me they have all these other criminal charges that have been filed against me and you know so i'm been dismissed some of them are still pending and this is a pattern of harassment and really officer lanham xp petition was just part of that that pattern of harassment so it's a conspiracy of almost like there was in cult awareness the problem with this is and the problem with this argument ultimately is that this is the procedural posture of this case a summary judgment a summary judgment you have to at least assert some evidence that creates a fact issue that's not what we have in the record here there department he doesn't link it to the lanham plans activity and in fact when he was asked if any of the other criminal cases or any of the other matters there was any evidence linking those two  petition for stalking or contact or he denied it there is no evidence of any injury in this case let alone the special injury that's required under the elements of a malicious prosecution plan and obviously i'm running out of time here but for all those reasons this court should have the same decision of the circuit court when it entered summary judgment in favor of officer la so whether is a place officer or not and so far as his liability in this case is is not your mate the standard is not whether or not officer lanham had some kind of honest and sincere malays frankly we dispute  that we don't think that he had any honest or sincere belief that he in any way friend we think that the jury should be able to make that determination and certainly not a fact that should be found in his favor on summary amendment rights and if you do you will be arrested and criminal charges will be brought against you that's not a hypothetical and you rate that's an actual injury and  politician that i don't like so that the politician may have standing to go get a no stopping no contact order against me does that mean that lanham to me and because he's aware of that threat i mean that opens and that opens the door to anybody getting in the context of shocking order because he sees some kind of threat directed at some other case and the other person but in this case there any death threats any man there any statements that lanham or anybody else was going to was going to be shot or killed or anything like that no the only thing that's in there this directed atlanta is that my client thanks  s well i sure hope we're not to the point where somebody can go and get an okie under those kinds of facts in somebody's personal little book and i guess i have to be very careful what i write in my pr yarnall now because it can be used against me in the gnocchi this in this case should be reversed and we should be able to try to do this case brittanie as well thank you counsel just as you have any questions no questions well obviously we will take this matter under buys met and issue an order in due course i hope you all have a great day and they are not