on know and was still the subject of an ongoing f b i investigation the entire point of the article was that because of the various possibilities of who was behind it the sony heck was a quote hollywood whodunit looking at what the article did say the article talked about the host of theories about who was behind the attack to mention the potential of north korea to mention of potential of a current employee with administrative privileges it mentioned the possibility of a former employee with administr privileges it also talked about it was potentially a combination of all of those possibilities it not this is the feeling it is your honor and the only way it mentions her is that her it looking at what the article did say  they yes and they certainly can be and in most situations yes but but again the article contains quotations from more than one cyber experts talking about the various different theories of who was behind the attack the a even if it's read to bring her into the potential investigation which i don't believe the article went that far but merely said that her email was connected with the transmitted information and she happened to looking at her  lines of the case your honor of the composer's case where the article there talked about the stroger hospital doctor saying that he's receiving a six figures alaric for no work there were other statements about him still being on the radar of the inspector general and the court there said that's not imputing a crime because there's a small line of cases it say even if they're subject of an investigation even if they've been interviewed by the police even if they've been charged with a crime that i too in there even though they're saying this doctor was getting a six figure salary without doing any work the court specifically said that the not impute any inability in his profession here is the seal was a payroll account the role that she does in that field there is there's cases out there about someone accessing bad things on the internet and they reported on that and i forgot what the role of the person was but they said that didn't implicate that person's ability enter job it may have implicated some kind of personal integrity but the quote so that's not enough so the person x is saying he the internet information ed ed work they said may have been i so again your honors i think there's a long line of cases that the court just ignored about a party being a part of an investigation and at best that is what this article had mentioned that ms i was still can come here with this i think the one that your honor has put together regarding the authority looking into it there's a line of cases that says if there's an ongoing investigation bed that's another avenue to say the you just didn't defame the person you didn't accuse them of the crime and you well that the hollywood reporter said everything they said was truthful your honor that's st and foremost what they said is that her e mail her name was an e mail the transmitted the information and that was truthful and then they also said looking at her linked in page she had worked at very premise that this is a proper thrill six a nine appeal that this court in its discretion to grant an appeal from the dead nial potion to dismiss under the illinois citizen participation act never moved to dismiss out of the illinois citizen participation act in fact it ran away from the illinois citizen participation act because it knew there was no plausible claim on to that law the illinois supreme court's decision in the santorum case and this court's decision in the ryan fox case make it clear that there must be petitioning activity and a routine media report doesn't qualify nor does a run of the mill defamation suit the i think reveals a great deal they saw a dismissal on their attacks on the pleadings early on in the case and they lost they lost on all of these issues of gillespie handled the matter is he said well you didn't ask me for dismissal under the under the illinois act but i want to be very careful i'm going to do a conflicts brief in analysis over whether i should import the will through the exercise of looking at the california and she's left back which is simply a do over of the same subset of grass before with one exception the public figure issue which i would get to and he says when you would lose there because representing promethea is after the judge has ruled i was silent she said your honor if i can just clarify is your ruling based on the illinois citizen participation and the judge says no or i said it doesn't apply i made a conscious analysis and said there would not be any difference in outcomes and i dismiss and so we don't think there's really a threshold basis for the appeal but let's assume that i'm wrong does it make here or the cast it's not we point out that it's part of the california civil procedure code but that's a surface argument the test is does the california energy slap act create legal privileges or immunities causes in their nd effort when they had both the california slap back for the st time they added a new challenge to our case that is the argument that nicole faisal is a public figure and therefore we  must prove actual malice and therefore they claim the case should be dismissed as wrong multiple loves st of all it's inconceivable that nicole basal is a public figure illinois follows the lead bomb test from the d appeals it's a three part test and one of the key elements of the play a bus volunteer only reject themselves into a public controversy to to try to influence that controversy she was the victim of identity theft her name was hijacked i don't want to run away from the heart of the substantive argument that the other side is vague even though we don't think the court needs to get there we think that they've got a very sanitized version of the way ordinary readers would read this article and even when we're dealing with the reasonable innocent construction doctrine so even if you treat this as a defamation per se case st of all the per se categories as your honor was with was talking about you can focus on the crime per se category but that's really not the easy one the easy path is is this the kind of statement that would tend to impugn your integrity as an employee that's the formal test of course it is would defamation cases are based on the implication that age is guilty in which there are a number of constituent pieces put together to point to the guilt but the but just a just a composite if you if you said there's a mystery but we think it's an inside job at then you name one person in a court of base and you then say and she's a former employee of sony and editors and show the reporter saying can we use your name can we use your name we have a breach or well somebody hijacked or maybe we should just say an employee not might not use your name maybe we should soften the language and say so relying on their for their false light claim they need to prove malice which we've argued in here and set forth why they don't do that and special damages again get back to the point that the special damages are not adequately pled we don't identify the specific employers the reason for that they can't just identify generic false light claim that relies on something other than the same basis for percy playing then they would have to demonstrate malice and special damages so they cannot do that so that's why the false lie claim fails by the wayside to they're trying to rely on something other than the per se allegations which i don't believe they have done their owners but getting back to the innocent construction world of justice mcbride brought up what the plaintiff and what the circuit court did they're inviting you to insinuation innuendo about the true facts that were stated here there's no balancing of the reasonable constructions which is what you're being invited to do if there is a reasonable construction that is the one that must be applied in the circuit court didn't do that they added some innuendo there pointing here they're saying it's her that the article itself says it points to an area doesn't state it was an area and everywhere that the judge in the in his transcript said here's what it says you go back to the article and there are some language it's as likely there are some languages as may point to along with a myriad of other other possibilities that were stated and certainly if this article head pointed t to the plaintiff why did it need to discuss all the myriad of possibilities why did they need to say that there was an f b i investigation that was ongoing that would have been the whole tenor of the argument would have been here she is and this is the the the culprit here that is that article did not go there at best they have an interpretation that she's part of an ongoing investigation by the f b i and there's a long line of cases here both that an innocent construction that simply cannot state  the st amendment that all of the case law that the circuit court simply ignored was meant to avoid the case construction rule is there to make certain that public discussion on a public concern issue is not children anyway and that's exactly what's happening here they reported truthfully as ron of pointed out everything that was said was truthful and yet they're getting bogged down in an expensive lawsuit because a circuit court ignored both the per