no no no well you know what's confusing is usually two people don't stand up there but i understand what you're saying is that we do weddings if he is we do w no charge well but you're trying to tell us how you want to divide your time but ok so you have to fifteen minutes total for both of you you have to fifteen minutes for both of you so if you're saying you want to use ten but you activity that their claims don't arise from her free speech or potentially an activity but to the contrary it's clear that for each since we don't have a lot of time what some of by now you allege that the plaintiffs waived their tried to law argument is that correct does this having to do with the issue of whether pennsylvania law right yes we that issue is fairly straightforward to resolve and it's resolved by looking at judge were brando's order regarding transfer and determining what was we we we assert that california's substantive law controls and that they waive the issue because among other counts it would be yes yes yes ok now all right there's like twenty claims here right there are ten claims against misbehaves all right well there's ok let's say if we were to find that some contact is protected but some is not have the  defendants met their burden under the first prong of the anti slapp analysis yes we we've cited cases that say that we that a defendant moving under the anti slab statute does not have just shows that conduct protected under the and i slap statute particularly given scuse me given that the private information was not necessary to warn the public about the plaintiff professional services so the alleged fraud because core you know what you're saying it was necessary to inform the public about the professional service and the alleged fraud well as to as to miss library there was a controversy before the case was filed as to her real identity where she contended that she was not the lisa library in question and that she was a different lisa library so in part w should be looked at with skepticism because of the use of a convicted felon by mr berg and so that is the current context of one incident that that start with the second one did they have a legal a sufficient complaint they never had it and could not have it they filed it in two thousand and nine and the diversity and there was never any diversity i or would you please look at the page it's two one two zero of the supplemental page two one two zero of the supplemental excerpt of record that they themselves plaintiffs provided this is seems to me that the plaintiffs might let's say if if i were to conclude that they might have established a reasonable probability of success on their defamation privacy violation and  question and intentional infliction of emotional distress we still have to determine whether each of the pie and other causes of action state legally car will claim because i don't think that you have to look you have to the claim after claim after claim but before you even look you don't really need to bother looking at any claims because there was never diversity and never federal court had any jurisdiction a didn't there is nothing there isn't a stitch of evidence in this complaint that i have revealed any information that was private because when you have i don't know if you read everything there but we have shown it was that social security numbers address all of her personal information and she never she never posted it and on that basis they showed that they dismissed the purpose and what i'm question is there anything the record if the new ways the choice of law issues prior to appeal and if  for this court has the discretion to not waive that argument this is purely an issue of law on the choice of law and this court has the discretion to consider on a day and over a review which this is issues purely of law where there is no prejudice to the opposing party because it is purely an issue of law while there is prejudice in this instance because under you know here we have it here and california we have a different presented is purely one of law and the opposing party will suffer no prejudice as a result of the year to raise the issue in the trial court and there is no such prejudice here in terms of the failure to raise it at the trial court it's raised it's briefed a second is plainer or has occurred in justice might otherwise result in this particular case was diversity case filed in pennsylvania as a matter of law pennsylvania law applies  complaint contain any pennsylvania claims you know i mean the initial complaint yes i don't know you're of the honest i don't know if i read it i didn't find any and then this raises a question thankfully it's a complaint no longer contain any pennsylvania claims at all well contains common law claims which obviously are pennsylvania common law as well as california common law so they do involve state claims not necessarily state statutory claims but does involve statute common law claims step imation invasion of privacy and things of that nature whether some of the california claims would survive by application of pennsylvania law and the various choice of law issues at the pennsylvania courts would apply i can't answer that at this time i think that's an issue for the district court should this matter on remand be subject to a toll of the five motion an slapp motion is not the equivalent of the twelve the five motion well now ok if we find that some contact that is protected some of the that that if we find the plaintiff claims arise from some context that is protected but found not doesn't the court need to hold that defendants have met their burden under the first prong of the and a slap and then we have to proceed to analyze crime by client no your honor again because this is not the equivalent of a demur the fact that some protected activity is incidental or antecedent to unprotected activity does not mean that the whole complaint is subject to the ethics that motion for example filing a pleading abjectly false pleading in a court proceeding is protected activity rebroadcasting that activity on a radio talk interviews or on a computer blog is not protected activity the fact that the in that the initial communication does then rebroadcast might have been protected just incidental and the primary process of the claims court must look at is the unprotected activity of rebroadcasting that well it just it seems to me that somewhere at its core you know publishing warning the public about plaintiff professional services and alleged fraud is score first they were not known to the public until misstates decided to make them known to the public well but the corruption in the fraud that it is false accusations libel it's slander it's defamation invasion of privacy and just because you claim that you are vising the public of something doesn't make it protected activity if that were the case than any defamation there's nowhere in that is she a convicted felon as you know all these frightened you didn't come back with anything to tell us that it wasn't true she was convicted of writing false checks she's not a career criminal she's not a career felon she's never been convicted of real estate fraud she is not a career document forger as misstates has accused her of being and she is a private person all she was in this case is mr burke's paralegal because pennsylvania law would consider that a procedural issue and it would apply the pennsylvania anti slapp statutes that you couldn't point to they had any pennsylvania clients that have common law claims which are pennsylvania cla defamation invasion of privacy stolen identity those are common law claims which arise under pennsylvania common law as well as california c and given given that instance you believe the pennsylvania courts as a state court would apply the pennsylvania anti slap statute which even as i believe mr bates is conceded would not cause a dismissal of this and even though i do have six minutes left if your honour's have any dish no questions this has been a subject of two hundred fifty pages actually closer to five hundred pages of briefing and probably close to ten thousand pages of record convicted of than felony counts of grand theft it was over four hundred thousand dollars stolen forgery of an official government seal and all four of forged documents and the issue information she didn't write your time your time step but you seem to imply that you were only keeping track of time on you which he did not use five minutes of i'm we allowed you to call overtime so you're not correct you got every