harris who was chief of staff for the treasurer contains considerable befall false and defamatory material including allegations of mental health and then the dissemination of information in that bars now those can be divided into two areas for this argument one is the grant of summary judgment for the original writing of the e mail and the dissemination of it within the treasurer's office by jim instruction number thirteen that in appropriately defined whether or not a jury could find publication the issue that i want to address parsed is the issue of the  issue is whether or not the instructions as a whole fairly present the law at issue now under j c carlyle corporation versus farmers liquid fertiliser three forty six s second ninety a single jury instruction that substantially prejudices the rights of a party can be a basis reversal and the kinds of things that bring about that sort of prejudice also reached where a jury is instructed in peremptory terms on what facts it will find that case would be boles versus goble one fifty one second six seventy one and finally if charge is not supported by the evidence you could create an error that way as well and that's bar versus evans three forty nine f second to eighty two those are all eight circuit cases and in this case all three appended to the issue of publication in the defamation instruction it read if the evidence shows that marine gliss of it she was a channel seven reporter possessed exhibit one which is the mail before defendant jim harris delivered it to her then you must find that harris in a box full of documents in response to a freedom of information act request in the morning before jim harris came to or later on in the day had a red folder in his hand and said if you want the real story make a request for this and she forward that and got the the email now the reason that instruction is problematic is first of all it appears to say that if you re publish defamatory material that you are not liable for doing it in arkansas law is clearly without question that if you were publish defamatory an were liable just as though you were the parson who originally made the publication who originally made the defamatory statements that's the nancy flaw case i'm not sure how you pronounce it from the arkansas supreme court and it's also the dun and bradstreet case which is cited in my brief and which was overruled on other grounds if you ever found a case where republication to the same recipient who had received that information from a prior i couldn't find one i don't think those were the exact facts of either nantz or dun and bradstreet now what i can say is that section five seventy seven a of the res twelve model instruction on publication says that publication is where you go in and give defamatory material to a third party someone not the subject of the statement and it doesn't have anything where it says except if you've already delivered it to this person earlier so i think that it's pretty clear that if you re publish defamatory material under arkansas law you are liable for defamation as though you originally published it and that's a pretty close quotation of the nance case the other reasons well yes or me can i just clarify and so that e mail was was in the for you materials that that went to that was released bob the secretary of state's office to channel seven no testified that he did not believe that the e mail in question was in the box that was sent over to marine list of h on april thirtieth so if he's the guy who's you know senior materiality he says it wasn't in the box it was in the box the other issue is that marine glisten bitch testified that she never looked through that entire box and never ever found that email in that box not  before harris gave it to or not after there's a dispute here about whether it went to channel seven the first time well i don't think there's a dispute i think they admitted that it didn't go to jail so in the first time i'm sure m and they're the ones who did it so if he testifies that way he would know and he had surely had no reason to say otherwise but it was that is this argument in your in the briefing  this i thought this particular argument about republic a sion was was based on the assumption that that email went to went to the t v station two times when they when it went in response to the for your request which harris didn't have anything to do with with fulfilling that response and then harris got it directly to the reporter well that that is understanding what happened think that's the defendant's position that the email went to the treasurer's office first in the box of documents produced in response to a foreigner request and then by mr harris directly tumor that they did not deliver that in the first well let me move on to another question that maybe that made me really irrelevant really what i want to ask if if the if the key here the defamatory document is this email it's the same docs nation didn't learn anything new it wasn't repeated by somebody i heard this how ya heard this let me repeat it repeat what i heard even though you've already heard it it was the very  it in that box that the first time she saw that e mail was when jim harris handed it to or in the red folder there's no question of that and in any event i don't think it's ultimately all that important other than in giving instruction number thirteen the judge gave a charge that's not supported by the evidence so it was error in that fashion but but ultimately  if you republics material with a defamatory statement you are liable for it as though you were the original publisher so regardless of whether or not it's in that box jim harris is still liable for it and the other issue there is that if it had just been  n the mailbox it might not have seen the wad of that jim harris went to her and said this is the real story he said basically when he handed to her that if the things that are stated in this are true which is probably what got it published so there was a question of fact we argued they had e mail to kill two times the first time it was delivered response to the foia requests the second town mr harris went over and so it could be defamation and the judge properly ga there in continuing problems with him so he was the last to know what to do with him were there special iraq or tories presented to this jury on the questions that we're discussing at this point there were no tours or anything other than malice yeah and so malice was the end of each of these jury instructions for defamation false allied invasion of privacy and they did not get to that in iraq story so no one ever asked th to make a determination as to whether the statements in fact were defamatory on their face or second whether or not the statements were truthful and so at the end of the day we know that the jury found that there was no defamation and so it could be based either on the fact that the statements were not defamatory in nature and that is that they were not intentionally injurious to reputation or that they were  man who's terminated from the treasurer's office on the way home from being terminated he calls the newspaper reporter and the f o r process begins almost immediately so you have experience publishing things oh internet where they did foia request that we take it is the jury instruction was justified because you know unusual facts situation that saying or contact you channel seven before there was ever contact the treasurer's office and the d individuals it's the same e mail it's just presumably or perhaps went to the sign individual twice is that even republication pretext position is not that one she received the first because what you're really looking at at this point is this statement is delivered by the treasurer's office twice to the same person and i can't for the life find a case that says the second publication is anything at  all you know it's not like it's it came from a different source is it could be the same e mail one comes from the treasurer's office one comes from the secretary of state office one comes from the janitor right each of those may be actual but if it comes from within the treasure in arkansas if this whistleblower activity they wanted an instructional whistleblower in the right to question their witnesses own whistle blowing activities there and when the judge ruled against that there and the argument isn't they should have gotten the rehabilitation that count also but the elements of both counts of the saying well there's discrimination because there's a perception of disability so we think that question was answered by the jury either way they were the banker for the state testified that he made a decision based on what he heard from all the exact he teamed with the four members not just jim harris he was aware of the the mail that he had information in fact the e mail recites all the problems in the test honor first of all wallace testified that before six fifteen a mail was not in the documents provided to glisten bitch on april thirtieth two thousand and fifteen two thousand and fifteen it was not provided until my first that's a trial transcript five ninety and five ninety bradstreet case i think that was a credit some sort of business reporting agency so presumably they were reporting to their subscribers the same kind of information repeatedly wal mart mercilessly involved multiple publications although two different parsons and as far as what happened with the dissemination within the office that e mail was not disseminated just to jason brady it was disseminated to the treasurer denis milligan he testified do it has testified to it dennis milligan was the decision maker who fired my pie he indicated that mental health issues were part of what led to my client's terminations and you have false allegations of mental health issues in there so there  dissemination of this e mail beyond jason brady and it was to a person who was pretty important for purposes of this case since he's the one who terminated my client due to spew that he abandoned his post on the last day in question was that i had submitted a agency instruction combined with a proximate cause nation instruction based versus proctor because there was some evidence that milligan did not regard as having a mental health issue  dennis i mean jim harris did and jim harris is the one who made recommendation to milligan jim harrison is the one who had knowledge about singers performance dennis million said he did not have knowledge about