he big conversation was never meant to be confidential so that neither of them ever actually held privilege that's that's a different issue ok ok you said it was waived as part of your argument is it not true that the defendant would have the right to in at the church however given the context of this statement that they mean to each other and given the defendant's action or mr snyder's actions after the statement was made and his discussion with multiple other people this would indicate this disclosure and then he went to another person a counselor at a rehab center and discussed in this closure i think it would be reasonable if mr sider was being trained as a pastor or as a hero or a spiritual guidance that he would discuss it with the pastor if that's what you're saying that's what i'm saying additionally i am saying that there was never any privilege because the conversation was never confidential and in order to have privilege you need to have a confidential conversation international person present there who happened to be needing an assistant pastor and these are the privilege did not apply because the third person extinguished any privilege because there is no confidence it let's go back to whether or not he was a perfect fit for are you saying he wasn't a practitioner because of what and against one that is not confidential and would not be protected privilege well look first for this in this case this particular particularly at the we wouldn't be here had this case conversation actually been confidential because we would have known about th they were accountability partners they told him to fast to each other but given again given the actions if you look at the actions surrounding circumstances where the confession was meted out said church inside the church when it was made i don't know if you can decide the whole privilege turning out whether or not he's in a confessional or standing outside the church you know i can see your point but i don't think any of the points are because i think he was making these statements while he was being counseled spiritually was there any testimony that was controversial i don't i don't police out your arguments says on the standard review page for the brief question on appeal of the interpretation of the clergy privilege statute statutory interpretation has to be reviewed to know your entire argument has nothing to do with the interpretation of the statute as i can see your arguments here could do with things that are facts specific which means that i think your standard review is inappropriate so let's discuss what the standard view might be based upon a factual difference of opinion use this image question of law in fact that is whether or not this particular individual falls within the statutory interpretation of whether or not he is a participant or a practitioner or god makes a statement to the person who volunteers to run why are not high holidays services this case would be different but not every house of worship or religious bodies like a care for the church or a jewish synagogue today's class in a credit individual school he regularly consultant the pastor of the clergy at the church and he had conformed to written rules this is not just an informal i'm just another member kind of think you selected by elders to be t the defendant is the question whether or not the defendant believed it to be a confidential statement at the time he made yes and there's no evidence full on the record that shows that it wasn't intend a confessional at st mary's there are virtually screams this is confidential and so that's what i'm driving at here what are the circumstances from which we derive this belief and i guess my question to is i record that he was a spiritual advisor and took this statement from my point you are trying to finish nature happened to be on the phone but it was confidential nonetheless and he wasn't calling from the local bar as he was calling from a religious to school goals and this indicates the conversation also is never meant to be privileged to define it and his argument stated that the state had an obligation to present evidence that this is not true  matter the fact that he because he disclosed it to other people it doesn't matter whether they are members of the church or not and detective hofmann said there is some level of confidentiality with the small group but he didn't say it was completely confidential and