good morning your honor may the court counsel my name's technique humor and i represent the a college in snap an eagle rich townhouse management of the trial court in this matter should not have granted summary judgment in response to the free association solution because there are genuine issues of material fact in the record and facts about which reasonable minds could differ that should have precluded the grant of summary judgment now the trial court did not particularly on the record or in the written order of the bases for the grant of summary judgment but i'd like to talk st about one of the arguments advanced by the queen a territory association who i will refer to as the g t a throughout the argument counsel before you do that let me just focus on what you just said obviously there are two parts to a really three but we're concerned more with two parts to a definition for sa kind of has to plead and prove that the alleged statement was false and defamatory and secondly that the defendant published the statement to a rd party so in the motion for summary judgment at the trial level did you understand both of these issues or elements to be involved or not yes i do believe that both of the issues were involved and there were a number of other issues including mother privileges applied whether there was a permit privilege what the correct standard was whether mr snapp was to be looked at as a limited purpose i would figure so all of those sorts of arguments were raised in addition to those two ok as i was saying there are a number of bases that were raised at the trial for a level that could have served as the court's bases for the for granting the motion for summary judgment since the court did not articulate we don't know but i'd like to arguments raise and i'll go through each of them i don't think any of them should have should have ben enough the court should read summary judgment and so there is a several different defamatory statements that we're talking about some were posted to the campaign documents was the names napa ever found either mr or mrs or was the e r t and ever mention in several of the am campaign letters mr snapp was mentioned by name and then you know who was in mr simpson's letters there are references i believe in the record to one of the letters that tux about fifty three specific references and letters what i understand from the record is that there was a letter that was circulated during the initial time that i mr simpson was seeking the election to the board which mentioned mr snapp i need i believe fifty three separate times know defamatory statements about what the board did at a time when mr snapp was the president of that board and so those documentations those letters that were sent out  an issue in the field because they say it's part of our claim that the g t a their active republic cian those is at issue and so whether those were underlying whether it was actionable underlying against the other publishers of those letters is not the specific focus of this appeal but the g t a s act of typing out those letters putting them into and the world's putting labels on those letters applying postage and then again sure enough one hundred and forty two members of the eagle ridge townhouse association which i will refer to as you got those correspondences that's what's at issue in this definition of appeal i just want to focus on one part of what you just said you said ensure that the members the issue of muling did g t a have any active role in actually mailing the minutes from the june two thousand and eleven and the february two thousand and twelve meetings to  miller the g t a employee creates a a summary of notes of what happens at the herd meeting that she creates the official minutes of the meeting she decides what to include she decides what to ask luke she decides how to phrase everything developing the content well when you say they mailed them out there's evidence in the record that they actually took them to a post office or dropped them in the mailbox yes so mantles out ok do you believe there is prepare them for mailing i think is the issue or responsible for creating and developing the content they posted to the site as well as printed off this account is that they mailed out to one hundred and forty two dollars burton members and recall at that point you know they would have no reason to be doing that well then why did hurted not make any correct sions or her say women this is your job why why didn't the board say their i don't know why i think one reason is because the people that were not in control of the board can simpson and the others had had a stated purpose of removing mr sap and removing legal reach townhouse management company is the engine a company for a long time their plan was realized the g m was back in the fall as the property the time in the two thousand elections yes and didn t have a an opportunity to say wait a minute i don't agree with this i think he did but at the make up of the board at that point was such that management company and then from that point even before the elections in two thousand and eleven there's an e mail in the record from mr simpson where he says even before he knew what the outcome of the election was he was already reaching out to the g see if they would come back into the fold in the their management company was talking directly to mr mattingly about that prior to the evil rich townhouse management company being fired and so when you couple the act of stuffing all  envelopes and meeting was out with all those underlying things it shows a plan of malice to remove and injure mr sam in the eagle ridge town where you've been talking about typing the letters and mailing them are you talking about the campaign letters the campaign letters going to give up their list of property owners for privacy reasons correct well that's what they say well my hat head do you have evidence that they do no i don't but it's interesting  counsel's brief that they that's one of the bases on which they claim that the motion for summary judgment was properly granted because of their privilege which applies because of the current the common interest community association act in the not for profit act obligate an association to turn over certain records including the names and addresses but the interesting about the whole they don't turn them over to just anybody they they have to turn them over appropriately to a member for a proper purpose correct and so but but my point about that is it's interesting that they're trying to rely on that application to provide a qualified privilege to the claims of defamation because that isn't what they did they're trying to equa opus the typing of these letters the adding the labels and mailing them out to the ca association members with their obligation to potentially have their own dissociation members be allowed to inspect records and books per proper purpose i think they may have and they can be turned over for a public purpose or a purpose that request was denied many times at least twice and probably more than we actually see in this record the request heard of prior to that was denied but at the point that mr simpson became a i'm candidate the board then did the attorney who are did turn over those lists but i just want to make sure we're not getting confused because galina territory association a property owners association for all of the people the four thousand eight hundred property owners in the deleted territory and then there are also eight smaller homeowners associations early as one of them and so if i they didn't turn it over so why does that apply to what at that point the g t a s undisputed was not the management company for ernest so why do they have any involvement in keeping a list of the early numbers which is what mr  mr snow was not willing to turn them over and prior to his becoming a candidate mr simpson haven't gotten anything right right but again i don't see how that ties into councils argument in the brief that that somehow privilege is the act of stuffing envelopes typing out that the imagery letters sending them out to the earth to the owners at a point when g t a wasn't the agent because they were the asked to do that and ice is looking at this record if i was in one of those entities and i wanted to have an it a block party and i wanted to have my neighbors i don't know all their names and addresses i could go to the g t a and say will you send these invitations well st i say we'll give you the names and they'll say no were you when you send these invitations and they will say yes i'll have to pay for it but they'll say yes yes there's a couple of points i would make about that require payment for all of these times that they performed these quote secretarial services they did it on a number of occasions on a balance your basis i think because they wanted to participate in contribute to this campaign to oust my client of to know there's no witness there's a list of a number but there are two in that specific list where he did not charge one of those people was mr simpson for the meaning of these things and he did it on a volunteer believes it was a candidate or when they were back in the because they were opinions are substantially true in other words the st element the justice hudson referred to whether or not these statements were false if so let us know where those arguments could be found in the record or did you just focus on focus on the nd element the publication and then related to that the immunity issues thank you justice you know yes the st part your answer is no we did not address the actual truth  the letter itself was provided for you there i don't know that it's clear on the record but it would have been probably a flash in march going to kinko's and indicating here's a letter please make copies but in this instance he also spiking goes with respect to the there's no dispute she transcribed the why is that material question effect as to whether quote transcription and what she did constituted and them being an information content provider i mean why isn't there publication they may not have created these allegations or this information did they ever actually within the meaning of the law publish the allegedly posted two responses that are our number one the communications decency  decency act incidentally provides a prescribed liability based on that if it's someone else's statements that you simply put on to your website you do not have liability for that under tort specifically cases reference  that is if he simply provided minutes prior to becoming the property manager earlier would create its minutes they transcribe it had to go through in the creation process is not a transcription otherwise any secretary of the homeowners association is go element of publication from definition when the person or party is the user or provider of an interactive computer service and they've published content of eighteen other information content providers there's no at trial for the conduct that's been alleged and we would have a trial and reasonable minds i think that the overarching point of this appeal is that there are genuine issues of material fact that should go to a jury and the jury that are posted on the website and i think it's interesting this idea of a verbatim transcription it is that there's no possible way that it could have been and susan miller testifies in her deposition that as part of the record that she did not use the audio recording to create the notes to create the official minutes she used her own notes and we all know that if we if you're in charge of deciding synthesizing the information of the three hour meeting in deciding what to put in what to x clues if you're another issue of material fact is that i'm ok we're going to add several issues but st it's our position that the trial court incorrectly determined mr snapp to be a limited purpose public figure but even if the trial court was correct and you  that decision the question of fact of whether there are sufficient material factual allegations to to the jury the issue of actual malice on the part of the g t a towards mr snapp there is sufficient evidence of that in the record there is evidence of the ongoing campaign that the g t a participated in to be conned in the industry company again there is information in the record to show that susan miller directed a photographer to go to mr snap's house for six hundred and fifty days consecutively to take something that should go to the jury and they should have an opportunity to determine whether they believe that the g t a exhibit actual an actual nowise the be complied with their rules if i'm assuming you're saying that these things were removed these look for i believe that there was discovery about that and i believe that the snaps were the only people that write down a fight and i also want to just circle back to that list of the people provide secretarial services and there is a list of people and next to it indicates whether payment was requested or not in a couple of those mr simpson in particular was not charged for that which we are in where is that it's an answer  interact with tori i believe it was attached to our most resistance to the motion for summary judgment as an exhibit is that is it possible counsel said that on one occasion or at least on one occasion mr simpson put everything in the envelope you sealed the envelope he put stamped on and all we needed was the the label i don't believe that that's what the record will show i believe that he hired were were i am in at least a couple  koreans actions or is there anything else on that list with regard to the i pad is there is sufficient evidence in the record of the intentional interference count that was dismissed sufficient  somewhere that establish that these things occur well let's go back to the information content provider interest that's what they are just this one yeah i'm mr simpson's email specifically says that he necessarily as a premise that two people have a conversation when it's going to the act of can you provide management services and then the g t s saying yes these are the things you can do when they know that there is at this point a business relationship president or i become a member of the board would you be interested in coming back as a r for pretty much they did not use the words fire them in will come in but i think when you look at the history of what they did say overtly to mr snapp about traumatically the chief executive officer and mr peterson who was the then president of the g t a had a meeting with g e and mary snapped where both of them were present and for those things that we have that in any answer to an interactive counsel's time argument about the c p a assuming the c d a provided in unity and i don't concede that i'd all i'm in fact i think it doesn't but let's just say that it did provide immunity for the posting of those minutes on the web site how does that he's not just an employee i believe he is a resident is my opinion is what is his capacity as an employee i don't know specifically but at the time that he made those notes he was an employee and susan miller the chief executive director of corporate services indicated that she you know those notes were kept at the g t a and then those notes somehow back to mr simpson i think that raises a factual dispute about whether the g t a intentionally did that and they published those notes to the rest of the early members but there's nothing in the record that actually would help us figure out  juror could find that they intentionally gave those notes there at the time of this controversy mr oldenburg was a member of the architectural review committee i believe is that correct i think so is that a