my client is here because six years ago he called least reported crime that he would just be committed in his own neighborhood he was then twenty years old and working his way through college showed him that degrees and not an economics we stand before this court now six years after he made that phone call he is about to graduate from northeastern illinois university with his degrees in math economics yes a bright future but it continues to be clouded by the fact that he chose to become involved in the government report a crime that you saw committed in his neighborhood there are a number of items that are not in dispute there is no dispute that a burglary took place on the evening of of january sixth two thousand and eight there is no dispute that henry witness  burglary there's no dispute that he called the police in response to the burglary that he saw there is no dispute that the activities of contacting the police being involved in the prosecution and testifying to trial and identifying away the potential perpetrator in sharp shit which shows where it isn't second in the complaint and how it correctly correlates to participation in government there is no dispute that there are that there are no accusations made to do not directly relate to that and there's also no dispute the henry had your i believe you're correct i don't happen to know the exact ages of both parties off the top of my head but that goes through to one of the latter arguments which is that this case must be consider against henry as an individual movement he is the only defendant in this case  received the orders that say that he couldn't duck discovery and the only discovery sought was the deposition of mr moggs day of entry and he took that deposition and he had the opportunity in subsequent briefing just use the evidence that he generated in that deposition to show to bring the standard of review for whether or not there was clear and convincing evidence presented by the responding party i believe would be a to novo review in this situation  because of the legal standards involved but in this case there's no evidence whatsoever that the court actually conducted that analysis because instead the trial court reversed the burden under the statute and hel certainly contrary to the public policies of the act well are we interpreting the act with the common law in mind we are your honor and then ended the capped off wasn't that standard that it aired live or at least part of the standard i no no substance at all to their claim that someone might think they were maliciously prosecuted because whether the standard in the statute that they have to present clear and convincing evidence whether they did subjectively feel that they were wrong  d using the wrong words but clear and convincing i mean i think an individual who was and there's also information in the record about the police simply going to the wrong address or the registration there was two separate registrations right there at the stretcher you're right as i understand the facts regarding the the city defendants database of criminal defendants and they told the the plaintiff's name from that database and that was the origin of the chicago police department's arguments but that had nothing to do with my client for the movement or the or the party was before the cour had no involvement in that he had no knowledge of that he had no authorization to do anything with that the only thing that he did was call the police report the crime and then when the police asked him to come into a lineup would you oppose it did the circuit court to make some particular findings about your client i don't believe so now there was nothing that the circuit court reviewed and in terms of at least the allegations that your client lied during the investigation and criminal  trial did the circuit court review all of the entry submissions and determine that your client had not met the additional burden required you're out of the circuit court did review the materials that were submitted there were no specific findings made either on the record the transcript i believe this is is i know for sure is that it is part of the records case and there were no specific findings that were made in any order that was or i don't believe there was ever a finding that that my client lied  back i believe there's no evidence to suggest that the there is a theory but there is no support for that whatsoever the only finding that the trial court made was that my client didn't meet a burden which doesn't exist under law the is with regard to step two of the analysis which this sports with a sidestep and instead of resting on the actual language of the statute in the actual one percent when writing about the substantial basis it's instead brass this idea that in order to prove the substantial or sole basis the plaintiff must also progress how historian marilyn's and that's an analysis the only supreme court has never gone through and there are other districts including the third district which have not gone through that analysis and reached the issue of this lack of the slack without ever touching the issue of nervous retaliation to the school board to remove a coach that they didn't like that they thought was inappropriate but their activities went far beyond a couple of public comments sending a petition to the school board they had an orchestrated campaign of the supreme court takes great pains to lay out in this decision they're making public radio announcements they're writing op ed pieces they were wrong radio shows it was a whole campaign with some very inflammatory comments made about visual the case before ours today is not a here they follow proper procedures this last up this case never should've gone never would have ended up from the trial they were by the way the difference in years between the two of them is not only one he's dead one is ali what they did was like the settings and rang my client's name and the lead system popped up his name and address and then went out immediately to his address to arrest him for no other reason than that he appear time that somebody participates they feel of course he had to go to the police station it doesn't matter who is neither is i mean he he made the call he goes in he participates in a lineup and when there's a not guilty finding that they should be burdened with six years of litigation  what i mean is that somebody participates in terms of the you know criminal justice system they may testify at trial there's a not guilty and since there's a not guilty they should be subject to six years of litigation what he slapped is most of those definitions do not use the term meritless ultimately though when the court did talk about mary list was talking about the ultimate determination there was nothing in the court's language that reversed the burden and put the burden on the plaintiffs opinion movement at a very early stage the case should be allowed to go forward that is the unambiguous language of the statute the suggestion that was made that this couldn't this couldn't be an aside a vacation case because three or four days after the crime it was discovered that there were two more similar because the identification of the plaintiff as the individual that my client saw in the alley happened the night of the crime he was called the police station around ten thirty or eleven o'clock that night did the photo array that night he did a live lineup that night the information that is by has been identified as as they learn i mean the city of chicago depends on happened three to four days after the identification it has no bearing on the specifically granted the right to conduct discovery with relate relation to henry myself as a motion and that were is in the record and the only discovery that the plaintiff sought was henry's deposition and we gave that deposition and he unusual in the sense that there is that but there's a lot of it has to be that would be developed went to trial but the point is the gag a lot of evidence would be developed if the case were allowed to proceed further and that's you know what's before this court is should the cases ha have staged proceedings is faced with this and the chopper comes with lucian you know what this is this is not this is this is not a marital situation and you're saying well if it was allowed to proceed further then we would find out just at the other thing but at the protected from being punished for having participated government and that the situation that's exactly the situation the plaintiff wants to get money he wants to punish he's angry about what happened to him he wants mr must stay open to pay he wants henry to pay for what he thinks was a wrong that is not of support is not a fair basis to bring a case under the