has a lot of substantive issues some of them are novel and others there's a pretty wide breadth of facts alleging the case however we think that this case turns on procedure more than anything else and that's where i'd like to begin we believe that the district court's decision as issued in our brief did not afford my clients the benefit of the rule eight standard even as refined by the the cardigan case which was just recently decided by this court twenty fifteen again assess the issue of what notice pleading is and notice pleading is not meant to be pleading with specificity it is not meant to be a prelude to prove your prim and what we have in this case is a twelve c motion a judgment on the pleadings motion and a motion to amend the complaint that were both before the district court and respectfully we believe that the district court  review the complaint and hold my client mr nader is not only to a standard that is higher than twamley in it all but but a standard that would even exceed pleading with specificity under rule nine b really absolutely and we believe that we met that both in the amended complaint and second amended complaint and of course you have to assess church and the merits of the case when and when reviewing that but the court has said before we get to the merits that you have to when you're looking at plausibility take a holistic approach you need to use common sense you still need to afford reasonable inferences to the to the or to the nonmoving party in this case and you need to allow that individual to have all the benefits afforded on a twelve motion and we believe that was met here now we're well aware of the fact on the merits and on the facts that we can use cases are typically not meant to be in federal district court nine hundred eighty three cases have been held by this court and by other courts to be particularly difficult cases  and there has to be as justice brier pointed out in the village will brook case the quote unquote x factor at issue and the run of the mill land use cases as you see is the developer or a property owner not getting his way before district before a planning board or zoning board and then suing for first amendment retaliation or equal protection claiming that the animosity and in the maliciousness stem from anti development sentiments or neighboring objections in the like this is not that case this is a unique case you know the future of this the whole the the truth is that you file here is the  with the issue of whether a real estate developer property owner seeking redress of petitioning the government to seek redress for grievances before a zoning  important issue the reasoning the hampton court made in what the other courts six thirty circuit ninth circuit and i believe the district of columbia if i remember correctly had essentially stated that the first amendment applies to all levels of petitioning the government it applies not only to petitioning the court in filing claims for judicial process but it also involves  it all and  town that happens to be the record in this case and so we get back to the laws abilities standard whether or not some of these circuit would terms your honor i think we have to look at the two issues the issue of whether its property owner petition before zoning board or a local board of that nature whether that constitutes legitimate petition kind of within the has yes or are so the x factor judge lynch and judge thompson that makes this case different is where the animosity in maliciousness stem from i couldn't find a case in any jurisdiction where you had a property owner out bid a governmental entity in purchasing a piece of property which is what happened in this case and then seek to develop that property by way of petitioning and free speech before the local entity and then have the government retaliate in such a way that it didn't this case now george leisure you're absolutely correct but the government certainly has a free speech right but just as any other person who has a free speech right that cannot be based on false reasons maliciousness except for a and what happened here and the judicially all did was put in  played that the water district engaged in an orchestrated campaign that ultimately resulted in the project getting tonight in the first place the rumors that were spread were false and that's what we've pleaded and we prove that through evidence and we allege that in the complaint that the that the expert testimony that was presented before the planning board and the in the board of health was in fact proof that there were no issues with nitrates or drinking water etc we put the no no no no no you don't start at the end of the process you start at the beginning of the process where there was a nitrate concern in this town and it was validated where some scientific evidence it was not unreasonable for anyone  concerns were proven not to be true but that doesn't mean government is not entitled to have those but when you have to draw inferences when you're looking at the rule twelve standard when you're looking yeah  inferences i draw are that the water district was perfectly justified in having these concerns and actually was who were required to have acted on them that you can't we that there is no district itself had produced reports and we let this that demonstrated that there weren't any nitrate issues that even came close to the e p a or d p level we played the fact that the water district at the very time that they were complaining  and taking this adverse action against my client it's much broader than we could talk about in thirteen minutes of time produced a town wide report that said people seekonk your water system for their treatment plant closer to the well then then our then our client's property and the militia snus as was held in the paling case which i know judgement presided over and that was an equal protection  the pleading standards are even further relaxed and the circuit has helped win that maliciousness and that animosity is there and the x factor exists in this case what happened as i stated before is you have to read the whole complaint in context we need to look at the entirety of the complaint and the second amended complaint set forth with even more specificity so i understand that the e p a s web site had an article saying