reports that just appeared at one twenty eight she talks about the c p o way being involved in selecting a consultant the planning of the project and having received the committee reports and having recent reports of training and having received a survey results so as to the reports disappearing i think that's a that's one of the examples of actual malice in that it's very simple that they assert something happened knowing it did not happen and if you look under oregon law the question is is a capable of a defendant or anything and if it's interpreted as they literally would be not a wand not harry potter but by the chief of police taking them combining two concepts there one is opinion one is actual malice as to opinion it's capable of being interpreted as a different story statement based upon undisclosed facts they actually literally were taken in hidden facts as to the opinion aspect as to the actual malice aspect of it you have to look at what did they know and when did they know what i can e r one thirty your honor where she says the selective the selection process which corroborative effort and c p o a was appraised of the selection process before hand and then references  committee recommendation so that i think is the clearest example of the ones you have asked me to address where if you look carefully at her affidavit there is ninety two and the first time it's in the context of saying for both the police chief and the city manager to deny knowledge this knowledge of these things we have brought  two it's in the context of one of the major concerns major issues to see pete away has with her is the lack of honesty and that that we have a department have to deal with her repeatedly on this issue this issue being the lack of honesty over the years so it is a factual statement and to say that she was dishonest and not know about it because we have dealt with her about her alleged dishonesty over the years when both of those allegations are not in her affidavit at pages one thirty five and i'm sorry one thirty seven and one and if you look at those documents none of them are addressed to the defendants they're all addressed to either the city manager and confidential memos and there's one that says to all those concerned but there is no evidence plaintiff has put forth that shows that that in the hands committee that signed off on it there were problems with the county affiliates the fire departments in the county did not agree on this record system but the excerpts are from seventy four statement is a county wide committee and i'm going to leave out a insufficient and i don't believe that that is evidence that the defendants at the time they made the statements knew the statements to be false find it hasn't produced anything that showed how the records management system works that was provided to the defendants before they made that statement and that tried to get a meeting so that that statement might be true well for example and several of the press releases they say we have just number please i don't have it in front of me your honor i'm sorry i can get that for the quarter aggressiveness of all mental memorandum  i'm lying and you're telling the truth about who or or vice versa about whether we tried to meet how come they can i believe something other than what i knew that i was flying i think the evidence  record is that the defendants when they're asked about that statement said we believed it to be true and i answered you two pages in the record where they said that so you have the defense statement that says we believe everything we said in the press release to be three three points if i may the subjective belief that opposing counsel referred to is post litigation statements that they didn't remove anything that they did in good faith believe and to i'm sorry opposing counsel referred to no documents existing establishing c p o ways knowledge of the selection process and the recommendation of the committee attachments defamatory statements in the press releases and as judge graders questioning about the showing of concerns and whether they must have knowledge of their own actions and should be jury be able to decide whether it's a lie or not that is precisely the argument we are making and if the court looks to the case richmond v thompson which is cited just briefly in our grief thing it's a washington supreme court case it addresses that precise type of situation your honour's where the police officer is accused of having pushed the defendant and having made statements survive blowing your his brains out and the