speaking now it's not some of the speech technically of course absolutely but it's not about just saying it is what's the strongest word blackmail extort paranoid schizophrenia the courts have said that that's not the appropriate test and in fact in remick the case that you that you just noted the court there is careful to point out that in the appropriate context that same word could be defamatory so again it gets back to context but i do want to point out in the senior statement then in addition to his meeting with someone i know at the very end of his statement he sa the position below on the part of the fan was that the facts that are disclosure twofold first that center states the length of time between the accusations when they were made and when the deeds took place twenty years thirty years forty years and the other faction makes no sense they're not one of these women who just came forward had every sort of a legal claim before any clear implication there is that they're making this up and that they're after money now he doesn't come out and say that you could as as an attorney i could see i could use the word of sort of black response to the publication of accusations made the statement is pure opinion and support if anything is an indictment two the journalistic of sexual activity the lawyer in that case was simply going above and beyond stating his opinion he was misstating allegations he was mis reporting fast and th elevators opinion of whether a claim is extortion is protected here the claims of the statements in mr singer's letter are very symptoms that they do not rise anywhere near the level  on his behalf would haul out facts that would call into question whether the claims had yet been that it should not have come as a surprise to her none of the police statements in mr stinger letter to the editor to the washington post should have come as a surprise to her is that the test no but it does go in line with the cases that say when an individual raises a subject that is certainly going to have an impact on the excuse they should not be surprised when the accused response particularly when it's somewhere whose job it is to do that a nature in the sense that to the extent people are coming forward with claims that are thirty forty and fifty years old against our clients they are suspicious they need to be substantiate they were brand new that they were never before heard that they were stories about things that occurred thirty forty and fifty years ago and that they were decades decades old events that during that period of time the accusers had said nothing had not made police reports or gone to law enforcement had several claims and on that basis he asserts that they have been unsubstantiated and so you see you are but that laundry list she just gave us should allow the listener to make a judgment as to whether this opinion should be except they were not and that's why from your view it's not something that's correct he's laid out the basis for his opinion so that a reader say well i don't think that's a strong enough basis or not but the basis is there if anything the nature of the the manner in which he has laid out the basis for his opinion is far more descriptive than in cases in which we have seen the courts have found it is for the script but the language is graphic to the extent that counsel has the best the court or directly the court's attention to the language in which in fact i think mr singer is more critical of our fellow warriors than being accused when he moment sure he's a representation in the brief but it wasn't in the complaint that this statement came on the heels of a radio station encouraging people going to one of his shows to act out  says i know people are tired of me not saying anything but a guy doesn't have to answer innuendos people should fact check people shouldn't have to go through that and should have to answer to you and it is is there anything that we should construe from that as  that this source is that these accusations are are less than credible and i think that falls in the identical category of thinking it's a sense statement that something is unsubstantiated innuendo does not mean something is false it simply think that the singer and the mill concept statements are much closer to the line i think frankly that the bill cosby satan is just quite not as much that i do think though that the statements really can be take context as a as a concerted effort because the martin singer statement and william caused the statement when actually made on the same day  only thing it was that was alluded to in the ne it would be a closer call but sr does more than that you know only says the way there's been a lot of time it's passed since this has happened he then goes out and makes a statement that is almost word for word if you fired because they believe that the threat of massive class actions can coerce a company into settlement martin singer says almost the same thing with respect to these women says these women who have come forward in the past two  not not the not the accusers absolutely not he's talking about these women if you look at the context of the statement and i don't he's not saying that women have a valid claim he saying that there are lawyers because the question he accuses risch will broke after that lawyer whether the claim is true or not that the question is whether or not there are alternative interpretations let's suppose for some somehow and can see that martin singer's actually making a critique of the you know in support of  the statute of limitations i mean conceivably could say that frankly i don't think that that's a very plausible thing we read this in context he's pointing his finger at these women and saying look they didn't do this for so long what does that mean i mean he didn't certainly posit the other part of which is  women who are sexually abused people that are sexually abused might be reluctant to come forward and say that the clear implication is that they made it up when we go about with the greed of lawyers and people who will come out and go after rich or powerful men it's certainly compare the facts one to three here which are clearly just implication in undisclosed facts to the facts one two three for example in the give me case where there was a reference about why the claims were on substantiated they were because we actually did an investigation and i understand let me let me just in we just let's actually be i know you know i want to mention the word on horse but i want to undercut this whole thing just get to the point of it which is i don't think it matters and it doesn't matter because this is really a cleanings issue and if you read in our brief we have in essence if you read the complaint as a whole we have certainly played actual malice lierse so in your head you could in your complete natural mouth we have as as detail in the brief i think there are three paragraphs we basically say that cause b when he speaks he speaking through those persons who are charged in evil to speak on his behalf including singer and communal kanzi and we say then that the statements that were made by by b by those individuals were made with with with below we requested need of court to amend the complaint to the extent that the court did not find that that was sufficiently played although i do think that it is when you read complaint as a whole and so just to to button up this point to the extent of the court feel that we