relates to at least two statements made by an administrator at that vocational school regarding this cane charged with violence in unstable conduct the district court dismissed the claims on summary judgment holding as a matter of law that a student does not have a trade for purposes of defamation per se as a result the district did not read regionally other issues related to the defamation claim or the elements i think your argument is not that a student necessarily has a trade etc but rather that student can qualify in some circumstances where here for example it's a trade school and there is some evidence that the plaintiff you know had previously been engaged little bit because there is some of the case i does suggest that a student who is defamed to the extent that defamation affects their livelihood a potential earning potential that they would be defamed per se but in this case i don't think we need to go that far we can limit it to you know students in trade schools or vocational schools in the lake where they actually do have a chosen trade and they are in the act of pursuing it when the defamatory statements are made and i think you know look drawing that distinction if you look at the purpose of it  and it is to protect i mean let me just follow up i take it if we agreed with you that there is no categorical prohibition on student qualifying you know as engaging in a trade i take it your position is that judge francis basically took that position we would vacate and remain and should leave do you think we should reach the question of whether ms came here or qualifies for basically that sort of factual analysis and evaluation of the facts and circumstances i presume we that the argument or the purpose of this category is it's a necessary fact intensive question it can't be just categorical it's a student just by virtue of being a student not actually having a professional license yet is barred from being a defamation per se claim and the death of the district court th he said by the by virtue of being a student and not actually having you know graduated yet she fact it really does not have a trade and therefore there's no there's no claim no well the theory behind the concept of think by virtue of being in that school she was engaged with professionals in that industry she was the you know the classes they immediately start performing services for clients they the administrators and a lot of their professors are all to me the people  morning your honour's me please the court my name is nicole fader and i represent aesthetic institute of aesthetics you're not arguing that there is a categorical prohibition on students qualifying is am not your honor and i think and i think actually your honor hit the nail on the head when you talked about whether there was evidence that she had been engaged in the trade at the time prior to ms came in so i didn't judge francis rest on that in other words he concluded that you as you correctly noted attended for five days prior to attending i'll tell you she had attended two prior trade schools where she had been discharged for behavioral issues and for a completely different trait she was going for a surgical technician license she had no other over those prior trade schools was for that or they were different correct both prior trade schools have been for a surgical technician license your honor and in fact the second of those trade schools was mental college about health and she also sued and your honor was part of the panel that denied her inform a pop or a subpoena and saying that there was no basis in fact for her appeal of the dismissal of her claim against mandell the facts of this case demonstrate that she had not to embark on any actual trade at the time of her discharge further if the policy behind the doctrine of libel per se is to discourage statements that might damage once financial livelihood then the defamation at issue in this case does not satisfy the purpose that's not the basis for judge francis is decision correct that's a different argument correct art let me ask you a hypothetical if a law student is involved in a clinic and somebody makes a defamatory statement concerning the law students conduct in that clinic is that person does that plaintiff qualify as engaged in a trade profession or business in other words still a student but engaged in a quasi practice of law through the form of the clinic but that's part of the law school under that case i guess it would go with what the what the defendant or statements are well i'm assuming i'm asking you to assume the rest of the requirements for defamation are met in other words it's false would tend to injure them in there in that profession or trade or business assuming it is one but it's just the issue that judge francis rest of my question is in that circumstance with the plaintiff being gaijin a trade business or profession or more to the point where the evidence be sufficient for a jury to to rule that he was based on the facts that you've presented i think there could be an argument that they were engaged in a trade because they were involved in a clinic in this case ms kane had even gotten that far she this different in its location in school but she hadn't even gotten to the point of even you know having any type of clinic you're right it is a vocational school but is it by virtue of her admission into the school that that she is automatically enrolled and she can automatically assume a claim of defamation per se you know five days does not lend itself to this too bright line argument that the defamation occurred in week sixteen to at the very end of her her vocational training  then i think then certainly there might be more of an argument that she might but she still is not actually embarking on a trade at that point in time she's not out in the world in earning you know earning money which is the point of the defamation per se standard is that they're actually in parking they're in there in the world they're earning money they're doing something to further their trade right now she's still in  school getting back to the argument that i would like to make before is that the the financial livelihood in this case is that the allegedly defamatory statements occurred and did not actually affect her discharge from the school her discharge from the school as evidenced by the facts that were submitted a trial was and at trial as well as in summary judgment is that she was discharged because of her conduct in her two meetings with that tell us director she was  aggressive threatening she was irate and in fact during cross examination by ms cain she asked whether i put my hands in your face and he testified you put your hands on my face but you put your face in my face during the course of one of their meetings  he she closed the personal space between the two of them that was the basis for her discharge not because of any allegedly  and in fact the two agencies to home the allegedly defamatory statements have been made to continue to work with ms cain even after the statements have been made so the fact that the statements were made didn't affect her financial livelihood necessary that's all you did a search truth as a defense is a matter of law and while there was no finding by judge francis on summary judgment motion with regard to that the facts and the evidence that was presented at the time of trial would be the same facts and evidence that would be presented with respect to this defense but normally the court of appeals would leave that to the district court to consider and remain and if it wasn't addressed in the first instance well i don't think in this case it's necessary because the facts are already there the facts the facts that underline the statement of truth were fully presented which was that mr rochester who was the school director saw her talking angrily responding angrily when no one was there the teacher stated that she was  talking to herself talking to the wall acting out a tainted talking in an angrily matter when no one else was around and the statements that were made by mr rochester was that she was acting threatening she was angry and that she appear hallucinating those statements were fully supported by the testimony that was already elicited to go to remount on that basis the evidence is already there are reminders not necessary it would be a waste of judicial resources to present the same exact evidence that had already been presented and in fact a magistrate francis's decision with the evidence be any different if there were if there had been a defamation claim considered at the trial no i don't think it went your honor and there might there might have been a man for a trial on the defamation claim would with the evidence be any different there might be additional evidence that that possibly could have been presented but i think the facts that were presented sufficiently support that there was no claim defamation and support that i tell you i had an absolute defense of truth because magistrate judge francis found in his decision that the observations of mr rochester the school director were consistent with the records for intern from international center for the disabled which was one of the organizations that had provided ms kane with mental health treatment they found that she had auditory hallucinations are the records which had been presented at the time trial or records from brooklyn center psychotherapy which indicated that she had suffered from paranoid ideations that evidence would be the same evidence and that's how you would present to support its defense of absolute truth ok if your honor has no further questions would with that with the evidence be any different from from your perspective i believe it what you want i mean the specific statements where i don't think that they were part of the education of discrimination claim and so we have to look at the  specific silence to resolve the discrimination claims you have to look at why she was discharged and when the reasons be the same they may be on it but we just i think we just don't  history you know just because she had and there were diagnoses in the past about her medical history does not necessarily determine whether or not she was behaving this certain way and whether understates in the future were actually true can you maybe this is what you were getting at and i don't know if this is what judge chin was getting getting at but normally we might leave things for the district court on remand but here let's say we agree with you given the result at trial is there any evidence that would support