minutes for a robot up there i too would like to concentrate my arguments this morning on one of the issues that we've raised on appeal although i'm happy to answer questions related to the other that is the issue of intent the only count on which mr minoris was held liable to the plaintiff was the count for intentional infliction of emotional distress and as the presidents of this court in the supreme court have made absolutely clear in order to be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress the defendant must either have intended the severe emotional distress or have known that there was a high likelihood that that distress would result it's not a negligence standard or a recklessness standard it requires a subjective view that the actions the defendant is taking are likely to have an effect on plaintiffs were the target of the actions that will result in severe emotional distress and the reason that none of the evidence in this case was sufficient to support that as a factual conclusion or even an inference from the evidence is that all of the evidence suggests that the last thing that the defendant intended and in fact last thing that everybody thought about was the likelihood that his teacher who was the target of the phony my space page would ever know about the my space page he intentionally set it up in ways that would make it accessible only to his friends in the ib program how many different he says he sent it to he thinks about five or six he link directly from the my space page to five or six students only students who were in the ib program and he didn't send any other emails and he didn't send it to anyone else he did determine the next day when other people talk to him about it that the people to whom he had sent home link had sent it to other people and that's when he decided the things had gotten out of hand and soon as he went home from school that day he took the lead down with a talk with mark but the way my space works like you to be the my space equivalent of a friend that's what they got when he sent away that could also be or were did on two other people but it was a quibble went to a friend request in the sense that it it there's a substantial risk that it could be widely disseminated so if this link that he says to five or six friends is something that could be forwarded to other people should a reasonable high school student have known that this was going to be forgone or is it or was just posed to look at this mine say he didn't really think about it his intent he must have intended the result for him to be think the way everybody else does teenagers all the time send naked pictures of themselves to one of their friends thinking their friend isn't going to send it on to anybody now we all know that in that situation where the teenage girl certainly didn't intend for her picture to go viral it happens but but you can't say that when she sent that picture there was an intent element meaning she should have expected that there was a reasonable likelihood that her naked picture which show up that teenagers think differently with respect to that as well but to the intent here that's to be measured against the intent who would get it it would be a different argument if the harm was alleged to have been caused from it having been forwarded at all at the harm that's a ledge came from one of the students who did get it during the less than a day that it was posted sending it to the teacher because the expectation of the student when he sent it to the people that he chose to send it to was that they all at the same dislike of the teacher that he did they would laugh at the posting but it never would have crossed his mind that one of them would send it to somebody else who was likely  teacher this this would clearly be a very different case if the posting had been done by say another teacher in the school where there was a very high probability here obviously you're telling us there was this is a teenager the honor and we have not argued did not argue it so he sends it to a bunch of people and it wasn't his intention years you're telling us the teacher would see it correct ok that's almost like calling my pencil an elephant but it's still a pencil well your honor his his thought process and he took steps in order to try to ensure that he didn't put the teachers full name and it so that it couldn't be discovered by somebody simply searching for his name he made the name of the page i'd be coordinate or without her name in it all so that nobody would would stumble upon it looking for other things and you did restrict the access so that you couldn't get it unless somebody gave you one when everyone who received it know who would be was referring to if somebody knew her but it didn't have her first name and it didn't have the name of the school it only had the last name and it did have a picture so certainly and there's no argument that he didn't intend for the people to whom he sent it to know who the page was about because there was a picture but again he didn't have the intention of having it go further than the people to whom he senate and he didn't have the or her conclusion was the fact that he testified that he confessed to having done it was evidence that he knew the serious of the cross and the argument is that while that may well have been evidence that he wanted when he found out that people knew about the page and that the teacher had found that out about the page he certainly did know at that point even more than he had known up to that point about the seriousness of the crime but the fact that three or four days later he decided that he would come forward acknowledge that he had been the creator and go to the teacher and confess doesn't support the inference that that means that he intended or days earlier for her to find out about it and that was the only factual point that she relied there's enough evidence here for us to find clearly erroneous i think that there is no evidence that supports and in friends of the intent or knowledge of high reasonableness because of the he went through to shield the page from accidental discovery and he simply put the page out there with no safeguards at all and had it been a so called open book that anybody could have have come across the looks of this and says oh this is pretty funny and he's any any just runs around the classroom shows that there's nothing to stop him from showing up to thirty kids in the classroom there's nothing to stop him from showing it to his parents or is he might be looking over shoulder when they look and see what you see what i could do it on the internet and then they look over the shoulder and they say off look at this we're going the school board with this there's nothing on the page that communicates to those five or six kids and what is thought process was when weighing the issue of whether he knew there was a high probability he thought that it could get forwarded to other people but he didn't think it would get forwarded to the teacher or to parents or anybody wouldn't think it was funny in the way he thought it was a book if judge mcwilliams felt that there was an under reasonable belief on his part doesn't she have the right to make their credibility terminations and shouldn't her  a finding that the safeguards that he put in were not reasonable or that they couldn't be supported by his own testimony my final point would simply be to refer to the indiana supreme court's decision was in a criminal case so it is clearly a different standard but a very similar situation where a teenager made a phony my space page filled with vulgar and very improper language about the principal in her school and the supreme court said that the evidence couldn't support and intact when there was at equally likely possibility that that my space page was made in the effort of that teenager to be a hero her friends and to be humorous in the school so while clearly the standard of proof was different and clearly it was in the context of a criminal situation which which is very different the absence of evidence and the possibility of a different intention wrist testified to in the course of the trial in other words in sort of a curry mason way she suggests to this court that unless someone gets up in the courtroom and says i did it and i intended to do intent can never be proven and we all know that that is not the case and is not the standard in the state of illinois and probably anywhere else we also know that the judgment of the lurker can be sustained on any basis that supported in the record so this court is not held to the words as drafted by the trial judge in this case but that the case could be sustained on any other basis which you may find to support the judgment of it clearly in this case this young man had great hate for this teacher anyone who does what he did in the words that he used to me the statements that he made about her and what have you he shows tremendous hate in terms of his credibility of he was arrested in the course of the trial that whether he had any reason to read dislike or harm barnes he said there's no hostility or bedboard of any kind between the word but would that be a credible statement given what he actually did what he did to this woman a single woman working in an inner city public schools now when i went to school perhaps when you went to school the atmosphere in the schools were much different teachers were respected  and we never had those issues so but a but in any event the teachers did not have the fear that they have today and we didn't walk through up metal detectors we were worried about guns and what have you the reaction that mr burns he had to this my space page and the fact that she did not know who had published it created a sense of tremendous fear in her in other words th emotions that ran within her as a result of that are overwhelming she doesn't know where it's coming from she doesn't know who's doing it but she does and i think that's a given that the flesh and really comes down to intention what was deductively whichever way you want to attack it or up whichever way you want to have allies but in this case the as as has been discussed already there is no point in my opinion there is no way that anyone could say that this particular young man did not have the intent to harm this particular teacher as has been pointed out the dissemination of this was guaranteed it were also we're not dealing with and did very very well in school so when we take that into consideration we can only come to one conclusion which is that he intended to do what he did if this is a parody or a joke that's only reason and contrary to what what counsel said this page was up for approximately one week i believe he did it on a wednesday and it was not taken down until a monday he came back to school on monday claiming he was ill or what have you and then spoke to a teacher so was that particular period of time before miss manners learned that it was in fact when her as who had hosted a particular to come from the words of mouth of the defendant because we can open up our chairs then if if a defendant claims that he didn't do it and we don't have somebody to say well he did it then th jails it in the in the same way here the mere fact that this young man said that he did not do it cannot overcome the facts of what he actually did testimony that he came forward and confessed because he he didn't want anybody else to get in trouble and and the concept of the efforts that you can take from that is is that he came forward and confessed because he didn't want anybody else to get in trouble and and that he was therefore it wouldn't be searchable well obviously it's been pointed out already her photo speaks for itself in other words anyway if you're disseminating this in the school everybody could see her picture even if her name wasn't on it but i know i don't think think what happened here based upon the testimony is that manassas when he created the page and the reason that he confessed is because by accident when he listed this page subsequent to its creation he listed the page he put himself down as a friend and if you go to the second page of the my space page is further appears all of and he knew were there particular point that he was a cook goose  no intention of fessing up to this at all until he realized that this had taken place and up certain he was coming forward after the fact there could be a lot of explanations as to why he did it but the goodness of his heart is certainly a roll down the line honor just two quick points one to justice as homer's point it is certainly not the case that you could have found this by googling her name because her first name is nowhere on it her last name is on there to say barnes and various places but unless you looked at everything that google popped up with bars that would not have done it then he did intentionally use id coordinator as the page name for precisely that purpose and that was his testimony secondly i just need to address the point about when the page was taken down his testimony was he took it down as soon as he got home from school that day and that he didn't take it down absolutely because the computers at school were blocked from my space access barnes also testified that it is correct that nobody can access my space at the school in fact she had a hard time having the tech people find the page when she first asked them so that is his testimony the basis for the  down five days later was the fact that the teacher sent an e mail to my space asking for it to be taken back and got an automated reply saying thank you the page is scheduled for deletion and there's no evidence in the record at all that that meant that it wasn't going to be taken down till some other point and there's no other evidence in the record that anybody ever saw it after the afternoon when he testified he went down and took the page down clearly he confessed because he found out that people beyond the group that he had intended to see the page knew about it is absolutely right when he created that page he didn't intend to go into school the next day and tell people that he had done it but the reason that he did it because he discovered that the school officials were looking for the creator page by that point the record shows that police had been involved the tech people had been involved for four days and had not yet determined who had done it so it wasn't an easy thing to do people beyond the group that he had sent it to knew about and that's what he testified was the reason he went home and took it down immediately he said i got scared i went to school i heard that all these people were talking about it i thought well this is not what i intended when i did it last night he went home