i actually thought this was going to be a completely empirical divorce as far as the girl i had when child support and alimony to get that to get to that point i had no interest in going toe to toe in divorce court room reviewers i wanted peace for my family unfortunately now here we are before the court and i have been harassed and i consider this a complete abuse of process with what's happened to me in my fifteen i knew what my ex husband was up to he did what he is a an emergency room doctor and he has been using me he's been abusing his medical license for years to basically make disparaging mental heart happens to me in the community as part of a custody case and as you see in the criminal case so that's one action let me just suggest that it would probably be a good idea for you to focus complaint this complaint was planned for state court there's been no serious challenge as to what is actually wrong with this complaint nine b there is really no serious question that night he was not a political to this pleading  can when one concern that i have is that there was not a dispute that you sent the text messages to your ex husband and to various family members and that when your ex has been reported that to the police officer that was a base says you know for giving him probable cause on the telephone harassment charges well what if you're not a making sending the texts well actually the test came to me that actually the text police officer did not collect were actually harassing towards me so it really well this is this was a cherry picking of evidence basically this police officer comes in he takes me responding to harass attacks he just recorded everything that i years prior i went to the chief of police to complain about cronyism this is my ex husband could have gone if they were actually harassment he could have gone to divorce court he didn't do that why because he knows the police officers i in the irony of the august call it was me telling my ex husband who who had my kids phone you know give me give the kids phone back you know i don't want to talk to you was the gist of the others cults so the irony is that i was being accused of tamper with evidence and that's very clear from my forensic expert and his opinion testimony so the bottom line is this was certainly probable cause was not something that chip in her at a motion to dismiss stage there were questions as to the reasonable police report because i believe he was concerned that you know that his allegations were frivolous so this police officer has their credibility issues and i give you cases also that when the credibility of the pardons here an ex tried to mislead my expert and he martinez wouldn't want to riginal my expert had to come and say you know these are not original that you regard so we have credibility issues by these people in there's substantial evidence to the death and there is something the matter on behalf of defendants the village of glenview and detective how coffee is your where we have many issues up on appeal today i'm going to focus on a couple of them in the time that i have this morning with your honor's the  the district court's consideration of the voicemail recordings and a video of the police interview at the motion to dismiss dange just for clarification these were not text messages they were voice mail recording based on calls and messages that the plaintiff's last in september of two thousand and fifteen in fact at that time she unleashed a barrage of just irving and threatening calls and voicemail messages related to her ex husband dr gamble to dr gamble himself his mother his mother in law his brother his accountant his boss at the emergency room so his babysitter and even his boy scout son's boy scout time of the evidence that he received it and that constituted probable cause for him based on his investigation his consideration his hearing of the messages themselves and the corroboration from the other individuals who for the st time and had no had no history before september th two thousand and fifteen is that correct that's correct i will say bed at some point years and obtain information from her in her police interview however it is not incumbent upon him once he had probable cause for that arrest to continue an investigation charges he had  a question about her substantive due process claims she last a family relations during that thirty days when she was deprived of custody of her children do you conceive of this as a th amendment claim or a th amendment substantive  view is that it is part of the th amendment claim but regardless it's on your you know analysis and the district court pointed out the end result is the saying that there is no evidence st of all i would say that in the complaint evidence that was developed by the plaintiffs to establish that there was any involvement or influenced by detective popped off in the decision that the court made at that time  considered by the district court because we just referenced them reference them in her complaint in fact admitted to making the calls and they were special to the claims that she set forth specifically her false arrest and malicious prosecution claims as well as her conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims she doesn't argue that they were not utilized as the evidence that she knew that was presented  an unreasonable delay investigation was begun tuesday investigated through wednesday and it was started the afternoon shift on thursday or thursday the plaintiff was arrested doubt at the police station as to any of the remaining issues over for your honor so you are breaks and if there are no further questions i would request that the district court affirm or this court affirm the district court's decisions and i note that the text messages disappeared while the child's telephone was in ms anderson's and no one else's she had possession of the toe in regards to the telephone messages she continues to indicate that her expert will say that they have been tampered with the expert does not say they were tampered with the expert says that the names of the files were changed and that the format was changed that's all there's been no indication that any of the content of any of the recordings was changed ms anderson has listened to all of the recording and she doesn't say that that's not her voice all of the recipients of the calls or the majority of the recent  the calls were deployed they listened to the tapes and again they recognized her voice and there has been no no indication that there's been any d changes in the tapes such as splicing or or any of that nature and she says that her expert has opinions that you know should make the granting of summary judgment improper well if all it took was an expert to make summary judgment improper every person who was attempting to fight off the motion for summary judgment would have an expert because it would then be a free pass to tr in again her expert doesn't say that in her briefs in the appeal there are many footnotes as well and a lot of the footnotes have nothing to do with this particular case again she's trying to pile on relative to the family court case which again has nothing to do with this case she's even discussing matters that have happened after the granting of summary judgment in the family court matter and again i would just as that those items not jiang versus puerto jang is a catholic priest the porter family had made a report to the police about a child abuse from this particular priest once it came down to it they found that the family had multiple instances of suits against this particular church this child had been hoaxed by the parents in him said this  said this on another occasion relative to someone else about sexual abuse and that case it was found that yes you could have that's lying and you could have intentional infliction of emotional distress in that respect there was also  mental instability that's a pretty shattering for some well again instances that she can point to in the record where that was stated would not be anything but mere insults and again that would not be you know outside the row would not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress assistance for all of the threats that ms anderson had made to him his family and to his employer and that's what he did he sought the police's help that's it so that i had to do in that connection  into the record in this particular case we don't know what those instances might be and furthermore this case happens or begins when she begins to make the telephone calls in august of twenty and the timeline  arrested and again may not agree with that but that i mean that's what i thought she was pretty clear about it well she's been very clear that she does not lightness to gamble and that she feels that he was going to inject it against her  and messages harass as necessary as and what have you there's nothing in the record other than what she states that he left her anything of that nature and that's all from her opinion there's nothing in the record  which was basically disregarded by the trial court but talked about of a huge history of harassment by this man and you know i have to block this man i had to go get protective orders against me on and oh he just kept coming and coming and that's very clear that i was the victim of harassment for years and this all rest was simply the icing on the cake for him and then he continued to harass me in those proceedings he tried to revoke the bond probably three or four