even further than that he indicated that because of those two particular things he refused to use her services in the case he was trying to know in fact that was not true there was no evidence that she was mentally unbalanced she did not submit a bill of one hundred thousand dollars in the underlying criminal trade case and the fact is the fire did not make the choice not to use for a trial in fact what happened is she chose not to travel from california to michigan to give testimony because she had not been paid for her prior work and at that point she filed suit against mr five year to try and force him to pay her for the work she had done now  was there any supplemental pleadings and that's i think i've got the first and then and then to return to the question why am i in context isn't that a reference to not only unbalanced earth simply hyperbole when you're also adding crazy actually verifiable statements are also made at the very least you have to separate out the fashion and verifiable statements and go to trial on those and given immunity if you're planning to do it for the for the fi for the hyperbole but i think that the hyperbole when it's anchored in the sort of factual assertions and seems to grow out of a comment on the stand on what's presented as a factual situation it's not hyperbole in an unneeded stance but it's hyperbole in the sense that he's expanding the description of something that he has previously claimed to be fact and we know that these these claims facts like this he build a hundred thousand implies in the context of all his eyes his calmest it implies that she improperly charge for a time that she didn't do and that's the same thing he's claiming that she did to him so it's making the actor it's making  interest of the public is watched by lawyers somebody look at this and hear somebody say will this woman over bills and the court laughter because she builds a high because she was feeling confident it's an attack on her profession and we know also that the court did not laugh at her it denied it denied the the three requests simply because there was enough money in the budget for it we also know that mr burdick the other attorney who retained her didn't say she was a bad way that's it certainly he didn't say that to the court next thing you know he goes into this attack on dr lieberman where he attacks or billing he attacks or mental stability he falls with claims that he never was going to put on the witness stand which we know from the evidence is it is simply not true and then from there he goes on to start attribution to third parties on which he bases his claim that he's mentally unbalanced i think you have there a situation in which that the viewing audience does well he seems to have a factual basis for making this claim that she's mentally unbalance briefly address the issue of the the fraud claim and i think there is a fairly straightforward one of the court overstepping its bounds and making the determination of the survivors harnessed to the effect that he never he never had it in his mind pay for i mean to me that can easily be interpreted as he came not to the court went the other direction and i think it's not really an issue of whether the court was right or wrong in making that determination but that it's not  is really about it really is about wrongness lieberman's filing of a lawsuit serving in the courthouse with that lawsuit during his high profile trial and issuing a press release accusing him of plagiarism rather that she's a publicity hound and if you take a look at his statement i think that's the only fair reading that anybody could see that is watching court t v especially in context we're hearing the survivor is reacting through lieberman's filing of a lawsuit medicine thirty four seconds to look at the i want to just dress a couple of issues that were raised by mr jackson first of all as to whether mr five was animated in his press conference i think expert witness and when mr wagner indicated in the press conference that he did not intend to call her that was because she indicated that she would not travel to michigan to testify unless unless she was paid the money that was owing to her occasions basically it was an agreement to pay said fees for various kinds of work so much for deposition testimony so much for review of records i mean they're certainly not attempting to claim that there was any contract to all obligation on his part to make her an expert witness there wasn't i mean if he decided that he didn't want to use or that was certainly his his right under the contract but that decision was not  if there are numerous letters from his office to her the point is not whether how that statement should be interpreted but that it is open to interpretation and that's something that made it a tribal issue fact and should have been left to the trier of fact and not passed upon by the district court and finally i i want to address the legal standard in particular and based on the mouth of its case and on also the of the flowers case in the large case the standard is not that you heard in