two question about your st point i didn't really understand your position on that under connecticut law i think you'll agree with me that under the gambro dela opinion and other connecticut cases  preclude liability in terms of you know fault your mental state then you're arguing that there's some constitutional requirement that good faith provides such a defense the girths case specifically the client to do that and said states can if they want to use just a negligent standard that's sufficient which obviously not allow for a good faith negligence you know would be much lower than trying to show faith so i don't understand that position can he explain to me what i'm missing there was absolutely no evidence warning the the statements that were made in fact in that particular case the defendant was two that say that yes your honor i agreed that the purposeful avoidance of truth can be sufficient to demonstrate actual malice that would not be an instance of good faith however  my reference to the factual background of gibber dollars to suggest that there was not actual good faith in that case i think that's apparent from the from the opinion al right whereas in this case the district court explicitly found that mr jones harmon was acting in good faith because she did actually but we the children and she had she didn't really have faith in the in the in the allegations that that she published well she she did help to facilitate the children's escape attempt in which they were brought to the police station so that they could report the abuse themselves to the police and also to free the mselves from from powell so she did attempt to bring these allegations to light through the through the authorities including the police and case require that in cases where the publication relates to a matter of public concern than actual malice is a requirement and the  but you also make an argument that even if the finding was made explicitly that there was not evidence to support it that is so if if in fact the magistrate judge here had said i've heard mr powell is testimony he's denied it be mainly the accusations i find it credible that somehow that would be insufficient the record is insufficient to support such a fine you can explain that to me yes if it's if the district court were to have made an actual finding of a falsity that would have been clear error because the evidence that the district court cited in its opinion that could potentially relate falsity was was almost entirely hearsay and the district court very carefully considered during the trial which evidence would be admitted for its truth and which evidence would be admitted only regarding state of mind of mr stoddard and so when we consider allegations and i find it his denial is corroborated by the two thousand and sixty proceedings which i am led to consider for the truth because you didn't object to that you're saying that would be that finding with we could reverse that finding mitted for its truth in its entirety details the children's allegations of abuse against him there was also the children's conduct you one question you say that how hard found that strong saddam and believe in the truth the st statements and i'm just wondering if you could point us to where specifically what specifically i know that your argument and i was looking through that battle finding section of the opinion and i didn't see that specific you know that statement said that it's a quote like yes it seems to me a better reading of the just what sort of assume that even if she believed the statements is believe the girls allegations in part because of their demeanor during their many phone calls and in the video they sent to jones daughter and because of the content of the letters and the details allegation you did not get them out of the house that weekend they would go through with their pack to kill themselves that's in the findings of fact section also in the back section footnote on appendix twenty two dollars shown saddam and conversely believe those allegations with full knowledge of the case history and previous judicial orders also appendix forty at the top of the  page pentax forty while john sovereign may have told the girls enough but we honestly in good faith in the truth of our statements and the court continues that belief is not enough to overcome liability