matter for the morning which is versus governor of the state of new jersey and garden state quality intervene or we have allowed an hour of world argument in this case one half hour per side and as a consequence we will stick to the clock which is not often the practice of this court but it's not often in a non involved matter that we provide an hour for all argument  also indicate to counsel that the panel met prior to argument and has decided that we would like counsel to limit their arguments to the issues of speech which is essentially devolved into the conduct vs speech question and the third a thirty three seventy one law violates the first amendment if perhaps it's licensed counselors from providing and minors from receiving any counsel to change or reduce same sex attractions f attractions or feelings behavior identity toward a person of the same gender any council by licensed counselors in the state that's correct these counselors and the same clients however may receive or offer counsel that is accepting or affirming of that same exact subject in his there is there a prohibition on informing clients of a bed availability of sexual orientation change efforts through non licensed counselors this statute does not specifically say that there is a prohibition against informing them of that however the ethical codes require that when you refer out even to a licensed or an unlicensed counselor and you're continuing to counsel that client for other issues that that counsel still has their obligation to follow up interact with the individuals whether it's unlicensed or license so for example if somebody came in with depression and the person after a couple of series of counsel indicated that they had some unwanted same sex attractions or feelings toward an individual the same gender if that counselor referred out that counselor is obligated to stay involved in that client's counseling process whether it's unlicensed or licensed under no circumstances make any counsel with regards to change or reducing any of these feelings or behaviors or identity maybe offer only counsel that is a firm in the history of the common law that's been you know into the statute  says that anything like that and isn't is not included in the code this so i don't understand what you're complaining about oh it's not affirming of the person's on wanted feeling the client comes to the counselor and has unwanted feelings for whatever reason toward a person of the same gender romantic feelings attractions anything else on a broad scale and does not want those feelings counsellor cannot counsel that person to reduce or eliminate those feelings under this law the so she says that as long as it does not seek to change or the of the law says that sexual intention change efforts means that it encompasses a person's sexual orientation clued in but not limited to efforts to change behaviors gender identity or gender expressions or reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward a person of the same gender so if the person wants to eliminate those attractions or feelings the counsellor under this law cannot do that the counselor can only firm those as being ok even though the client in their right to self determination chooses not to go down those particular feelings has a conflict for example between their feelings or their behaviors or how they have done to fire themselves or their to the approach of a client to prevent or counselling but i'd like to get to what is the great divide in this case and that is the dichotomy that has been discussed both here and in district court and also in the pick up case it's a stark divide and speaking only for myself i'm not sure how helpful it is analytically in this case in this setting that is the counseling or therapy said i'm talking about the characterization of what goes on here within a therapist's office as conduct or speech would you agree with me that the state of new jersey can prohibit some specific physical treatment by a licensed physician let's say a surgical procedure without that implicating the first and yes i can i would agree with that all right it's administered through spoken words rather than through the application of a scalpel well there's a big difference between an invasive procedure where someone is using a scalpel and a particular seat surgical procedure is that is so obviously and you have tried to make that difference to a great extent on the basis of the therapy that is offered here being speech and council as the definition of that is to actually exchange opinions and ideas to reach an objective or a decision and that's what councillors very well your adversaries  in the persons over and it is of the state of new jersey and garden state equality of pointed to the give any case what weight does the given the case carry here because that case  although it may be teaches that at least in some instances what may appear to be speech or expressions in fact can i think the case that really better applies as the case that this court issued in bach in the united states supreme court affirmed and that is the united states versus stevens case what's at issue here is the elimination of an entire category of speech by just simply calling it conduct and i  entire category from speech protections and pick up and the lower court actually did that they did this continuum of three to your continuing with this talk therapy which all nine judges who  looked at this so far have all agreed that what is at issue here is talk four of those nine have felt that it was a speech that's at issue and the three at the ninth circuit in the dissent on the  that it was exactly this explained limited in an entire category speech so what the court did was say that this is this conduct and therefore it has no first member protection well but i noticed in that case and i want to ask both sides about what it may suggest were application here and that that was what i would say was the holding because although it was a  believe there were five votes for this part for the part of the opinion that embraced this language and that is the holding that a physician speech when part of the practice of medicine is subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the state so in the first instance it would appear there is a recognition by the who're that physicians speech is part of the practice of medicine it can be infectious that speech but at the same time it's subject to reasonable licensing and right yes but in that particular case it was actually a three judge plurality that signed on to that provision and that last specifically allowed the doctor to make an individual determination as to whether information beyond what they were to be given should be given so that was not a blanket ban on the doctor it was the doctor providing information to the patient but if the doctor believed in his or her informed consent in the way the pennsylvania statute directed dissemination of information was not yes but it also specifically said that the doctor if they felt in that in any particular situation that in his or her medical judgment that was contrary to the best interest of the client or the patient that they could do something different so it wasn't a blanket ban whereas what we have here is a blanket prohibition the subject matter is permissible but the viewpoint on the subject matter of changes not and that is completely unique throughout the history of not only the common law but the statutory codification of doctor patient client counselor relationships when a client comes in to a counselor they expect to hear a particular message because they have the right under the codes to set their hands on the job it surprised by your response though because i mean it would nor did i intend the question to be a softball but it seems to be an acknowledgment by some members of the supreme court that during the course of medical treatment speech may  as part of medical free yes but again it's a three judge parole of a but it was informed consent and it wasn't a blanket prohibition on what they could say in fact the doctor still had the discretion to do something contrary to that if their medical judgment dictated otherwise and this they have in our clients have no problem with informed consent in fact they engage in informed consent the california counseling association's when the bill was going through in california actually followed the letter of objection and said that a less restrictive means would be informed consent and they proposed to her and informed consent then a fact and informed consent would be what protects the individual client if the state of new jersey has an interest in protecting these children the best way to do it is through an informed consent what is the speech that is being prescribed here by dispatch is it expresses yes it is what's the expression exchange of ideas and opinions to reach a decision and that's exactly what these councillors do they give information in dr king's standpoint she not only gives information information always well they give information and advice and counsel to help them reach their ultimate goal and objectives they give them advice they advocate for the clients they advocate for them in terms of reaching their ultimate objective what this law does is require them to impose want to act on the certain behaviors or feelings the counsellor cannot assist that client and advise them about how they can overcome or reduce or eliminate those behaviors or feelings or identity they cannot give the client what they ought to molly want and the client counseling codes across the board require clients to have the right of self determination they have the right to be able to seek their objective and the client comes in seeking that the counsellor helps them in advise them and counsels them and encourages them and gives them information and advice and advocates for them to reach that objective they don't impose their idiology on them but what this law does is imposes the ideology of the state on them and they write to you yes like in connacht versus walters the ninth circuit decision with regards to marijuana in that case they could talk about marijuana they could talk negatively about marijuana but that the doctors could not give counsel to use marijuana for medicinal purposes and konitz said it the thing that triggered the law which is what triggers it here is the subject matter of marijuana here the thing that triggers the law is the subject matter of same sex attractions they also went further that it not only was content based because it's triggered by the discussion of marijuana but it's viewpoint based because they ascertain whether or to dance aside whether it violates i think as you pointed out judge in the bardic a case that if it actually imprint impinges on speech you don't even go to the o'bri more than one yeah more than one but the but i think that case clearly indicates that o'brien doesn't apply that you go to a pure speech analysis but i think here first of all it's a content based compelling interest and less restrictive means attractions was prohibited it would be content based so you couldn't say anything pro or con but here it's permitted but only one viewpoint of it you can't reduce or eliminate it but you can affirm it or accept it so there's no case that's ever upheld a viewpoint restriction on private speech these are not government actors they're not seeking a license sure they're not trying to enter the profession and bypass the education and training they're licensed it's regulating what happens in the privacy of the counseling room and when the subject matter of same sex attractions come up the counselor has to look back and check the government over the shoulder looking into that counseling room because only one viewpoint of same sex attractions is permitted the viewpoint of reduction or change is not so i think it's viewpoint based and based upon that it's unconstitutional but i also think it's content based and if it's even just for argument's sake you grant that they have a compelling interest which let me come back to that it's not the least restrictive means available is but i think when you look at the issue of what they cited they cited the american task force association report of two thousand and nine and that report said there is no research on minors they asked for and called for research on minors there's no research that it's actually harm to minors because there's no we don't we in terms of that record though really have two different conclusions were two different areas of evidence one would be with respect to whether any harm is done and i would assume that you would be telling this panel that there is little to no evidence on that and that the organization in its report conceded that correct but there is also the body of research that would suggest that there is little to no efficacy in the treatment to is there not and if there's a case cannot the legislature legislate on the basis of a lack of effica a form of treatment for which someone is taking time and paying money i don't think they can go that far when i think brown at the supreme court and the other cases talking about violence  the the other cases that the supreme court regarding the consumers right to have information but particularly brown with regards to the violent video games they said that there was anecdotal information of harm and you can't have anecdotal information of harm in order to restrict information talking about health care treatment if there's no evidence of that efficacy legislature is free to step in and say we're not going to permit this well there's also evidence that the a p a said  out there coming up with i suppose it's curious but controlled substances are in a completely different situation if you take for example anorexia or believe me those are very difficult situations for counselors to have success ratios and if you were to look at success ratios and counseling across the board and have a ban on those that weren't that helpful you would ban a lot of counseling where week we can find all kinds of distinctions in contrast between various types of cretin whether they're talk therapy or pharmacological but the bottom line here is that the police power of the state to regulate for the benefit of citizens health and safety would permit the state with an appropriate universe of information and empirical evidence here to legislate in this area at least subject to some level of scrutiny if what this is a speech and i'd like to hear your position with respect to if it is speech where if it indeed has an incidental impact on speech whether some lower form of scrutiny other than heightened scrutiny would be  appropriate i think at a minimum the o'brian level of intermediate scrutiny would be appropriate because clearly the lower court describes this as conduct but certainly the conduct if there is conduct here it is speech and the lower court acknowledged that the information is done through talk and the undisputed evidence is that it's simply done through talk so the o'brian level of scrutiny i think at a minimal would be applied in the lower court simply rejected that no consideration on anything not rationalize that's correct and found that the reason is because excluded it from any other was even any reason to get through to a level of scrutiny at that point was there on to this day i'm trying to figure out what the district court was doing she said it wasn't speech she said it didn't have an incidental impact on speech and in a footnote there's some reference to whether or not there was a substantive due process claims if you raise a substantive due process klein no something you just continue to confuse me as i prepared for this case if the court says there's no speech and there is no incidental effect or impact on speech and there's only a free standing speech claim what's left is subject to scrutiny damaging knock down the speech claims that there's nothing to scrutinize it but i got over that question myself and what i come to is that if there's a free speech speech claim you're asking for a that the district courts talking about the conduct is that the talk therapy that's being provided here has been that talk is it's yes it's talk it's not speech in the first amendment no communication going on in the therapeutic setting when you're attempting to change that sounds like a prescription for some pretty ineffective therapy if there's no communication or it's not communicating medications not the intent the intent is to bring about a change you're communicating that's the vehicle by which you're providing this treatment it's not the met the intent you would agree it's communication yes it's like like the communication does not necessarily translate into speech is that term of order to use all there isn't a current first amendment supreme court case on this issue the supreme court denied the petition for sarsi arias the pick up case so the pick up case said that the an a p case in the ninth circuit concept of speech talk therapy and the use of verbal communication and sexual orientation change efforts is merely a tool it's a technique to deliver a particular treat to the patient yes there's the therapist talks that's the vehicle by which they are delivering their treatment and talk is encompassed in the first amendment not not all therapy if you're not talking because i mean talking isn't talking speech talking is speech it's verbal communication it's not speech under the first amendment sense it's not protected pure speech it's a form of treatment in this case in this context to mean we're here in the wake of pick up and will be informed by it or not informed and there was an a and a a p in the ninth circuit as well which specifically address that the key component of psychoanalysis is the treatment of emotional supper and i'm asking you what examples can you give me of verbal conduct that has been recognized first by the supreme aside from giving aside from talk therapy just any side on that given i'm asking you for present regarding talk therapy or just any sort of professional cut like a meeting or professor let me try one more time can you point to any precedence of the supreme court where in the court has held that there has precedents then that's the answer if there are we'd like to hear what they are let me ask you about a particular precedent and it's one that i'm rather surprised that mr staver did not bring up and that is humanitarian law project speech is communication you have to communicate in august i apologize and we will not risk richter speech at all other than by you know nothing from calm to calm question thank you i apologize and humanitarian law the statute criminalizing the provision of material support to terrorist organizations violated the first amendment because the conduct triggering that statute was what message was being communicated here that's i mean that's  was much broader than the statute as you see here here no communication is prohibited only the practice of the treatment with minors it is the practice that triggers the statue the law and licensed mental health providers can provide their message they can even provide their viewpoint on this treatment they just can't then shift that language that's speaking into attempting to change the individual once they start to attempt that change once they start to treat quote unquote a sexual orientation that's not an illness and should not be treated that's when this started to strike you can you provide us with the wall can you provide us with a limited principle some time of some kind that would inform the public and courts where something stops being conduct and starts becoming speech how do you distinguish communications that are speech from what the communication is meant to do if you're meant to exchange ideas then that's the first amendment that's pure so we should allow the state of new jersey to dictate to us what constitutes protected first amendment speech for purposes of federal constitutional law you know in this case the regulated profession has the they know the where the line is drawn they engage in a discussion regarding what sexual orientation change efforts is with minors and then let's say that an adolescent male who has same sex attractions goes to goes to a friend of his and the friend isn't a professional he's not a counselor of any kind but as a friend this young man is seeking advice now if the friend of the young man seeking advice says well you you can control these urges they they can be suppressed and they and they are outside the counseling context wouldn't what the friend said to the young man who was seeking advice constitutes absolutely all right so why isn't what we have here speech i cannot figure out why you are not taking an approach which goes to the level of scrutiny that are to be subjected that are to be applied to what at the very least would seem to have some incidental because even in your hypothetical if that were a licensed mental health provider they'd be permitted to say that this statute doesn't prohibit them from saying you can change your sexual orientation it prohibits them from from trying to affect you at the end i think you are saying that the by virtue of the existence of the statute that somehow metaphysically changes what was speech in one context a non speech in another in your hypothetical it's speech in both contexts and i'm saying it's not prohibited by the statute are you i said from one setting where it change your sexual orientation that's not prohibited by the statute that is speech that's their opinion it's when they turn into using techniques to attempt to make that change what technique we have struggled with having the plate is defined that the district court asked the plaintiffs to define exactly what it is that that they do when they engage in this treatment but we can point to dr lekan nicolo says declaration that states that he and his colleagues that law is where they get done discussing this this therapy is out there you can change whatever their opinions are viewpoints are on it and if the wind is right when that stops and then you start engaging in those techniques you've just just discussed whatever they are i think dr jasser give examples of if you try hard enough of you know if you're if you're deserving of god's love you all change those type of things when you start trying to use techniques and use your words to change the sexual orientation of a minor that becomes conduct because he gave you the minor while you're feeling it's ok it's normal ten percent of the men feel that is that ok those i don't i don't know how if you are if you have a counselor who saying it's ok to be who you are how that can be perceived that the cows are trying to change that individual but if that allegation were made the regulating boards would be able to determine on those case by case basis and on the facts of the each particular instance isis at the side of the regulating who are already in it this is not a self effectuating statu misconduct is with regard to sexual orientation change efforts with minors so if there was an allegation that a license counselor who is regulated by the statute has engaged in something that prohibited  vehicle by which you attempt to do that it's just like a needle that delivers a drug it's you're delivering the treatment and i really am just refuse now because i thought that in my hypothetical which perhaps i didn't state clearly enough that you said that the message the words the talk speak conveyed in the same way in the therapeutic setting as was conveyed by the friend a friend in a private said that same sex urges could be changed and should be suppressed w happened what is said that is illegal under the statute it's one and they're going to lose their license it's once you stop talking about it in the general sense and you stop giving your viewpoint about it and you start applying record correct plaintiffs plaintiffs allege they only do talk therapy that's correct so just like those are techniques to create change in a person to make them not the pick up majority of the pick up opinion indicate when twenty one so far is at least to take a an even if approach with respect to incidental effect the distinction is it's not an incidental effect on speech in the first amendment sense we're not talking about speech pure speech we're talking about speech that occurs in a perfect professional setting where the licensee has a fiduciary duty and is said in the in the therapeutic set yet you're on a d i think the answer to that is first of all setting aside that is not license it clearly isn't current but if expressing an opinion that same sex attractions are morally wrong with that same sex attractions can be changed that there are ways to suppress them i would agree is speech and that it would not fall under the rubric of this statute whether it was said by the friend on the street or the licensed therapist or mental health provider in the in this therapeutic setting the point is when and by the therapist in my hypothetical isn't it in the latter case by the therapist a predicate to the therapy the soci there be that they do it very well may be your are but that's  exact same distinction the ninth circuit you in the cone case in the county case they were talking about recommending treatment talking about treatment discussing risks and benefits all that protected speech and i certain held that is protected speech and we agree with that and we think that this law permits counselors to do that it's when you cross the line and then engage in the practice of trying to actually alter someone's sexual orientation that it moves over to conduct what you know how do you  making which is we agree and your honor pointed out that the aversive therapy is that nobody is claiming is taking place in this case but those therapies are conduct and your honor believes that's the case your conduct to effectuate an end goal of altering someone's sexual orientation but if you think of this as a tool bucket of ways in which you get to that end result this talk therapy is one of those tools that is allowed that that was designed to get to that end result and we know from the give any case  we know from the orlik case that just because a course of conduct is effectuated through words whether spoken or or written does not bring those words into the ambit of the first amendment because the words are the tool by which you're effectuating the treatment the end result that's why in the current case you had a distinction drawn between talking about the treatment talking about medical marijuana why it might be helpful why it might benefit this particular patient but then the prohibition on actually going ahead and prescribe ing that treatment and that's something that that new jersey does all the time with respect to speech and whether words can be used in in profess tional settings without running afoul of the first amendment if they did but as i was saying in terms of what new jersey already does and that nobody would question that they have the right as the police power of the state to regulate professionals coming under the ambit of their state licensure for example they regulate what treating mental health professionals can say words can say to people who are in state facilities who are suffering from mental health conditions and that's new jersey statute attitude section thirty colin forty s twenty seven five particular things that would be counter and counter productive to the treatment mill you in which the patient finds himself and actually on this point would direct the panel to the brief that was signed that was submitted by the ments the health law scholars a ticks off a whole series of ways in which the state of new jersey regulates the conduct of speech in both mental health and medical fields and also other fields it mentions the california case clearly there are cases al in that car in that city in that setting are clearly meant to convey ideas that the that the speaker understands as being expressive on the the audience you're effectively drawing a distinction between the teaching of education rule in the treatment with therapeutic rules no you're on it's slightly different i'm drawing the distinction between what the words are meant to convey the purpose of the purpose of education is an exchange of ideas it's a discussion between teachers and students one one would hope well yes but your adversary explicitly said that that's exactly what counseling is to and change of ideas you're on every know of your own of the purpose of counseling in the therapeutic sense in it is in order to affect you wait a treatment a betterment in the mental malpractise suits but by the first amendment the same if you it's the same purpose that's being served by these words which are clearly words in this case but are not being used in the form of constitutional speech help us mr friedman with with what really i mean if if this panel were to determine that the statute at least has an effect on an incidental effect guns beach then we have to determine what would be an appropriate level of scrutiny help us with that yes or are i think rational basis would still apply even if there is an incidental effect on speech here do you think that the to the extent we can draw anything from planned parenthood resists casey that the language that i earlier re cited from their points in the direction of a rational relationship approach i think your honor it points in the in the distance to the distinction that we've been discussing here today because what what what they what the supreme court said in casey was that when speech is part of the practice of medicine it's subject to reasonable licensing regulation that's what i hear  parts of the speech that engage between a physician and a patient or a mental health professional and a patient which clearly are deserving of heightened scrutiny for example discussions about efficacy of treatments discussion about availability of treatments and options discussing risks and benefits with a patient but once then that treatment is implemented and even though in this case it's being  through they do get implemented through words but there is i think what's important to recognize here your honor and i think this there's a lot of struggling with what this is and how yes your honor the fact that this is going to that the treatment is effectuated by word has never been held by the supreme court to move that conduct or treatment into the realm of protected speech and i think it's important to recognize that we're talking about a defined set of practices here that the mental health community is aware of and knows about and i think on that point i would direct at the panel to the brief that was submitted by various psychological and psychiatric associations in the state of new jersey which test which which has submitted in that brief that not only is the statutory language very clear on what it prohibits methods and practices designed to alter sexual orientation through for example mannerisms behaviors those sorts of things  o'brien clearly clearly this the state has a compelling interest as your honor has recognized in the free speech coalition case a couple of years ago judge smith that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the wellbeing of minors this they're both their physical and but they also looked at many many other things and the legislative findings on those almost points are spelled out in great detail in the statute it's a testimony testimony from people both proponents and opponents of the law and they consider the positions and the views of every single major professional organization that speaks in this areas and from whom new jersey gets its standards of what professional care are for license conduct and it was very clear thank you very much thank you your hon honor i think the discussion that has just occurred is the problem that the counselors have what is it that actually is banned when they're in the counseling session and the counseling session is dynamic the question that they have to ask is will the next word of a sentence or the opinion ultimately be the revocation of my license this is their entire license because if they cross this line wherever this line is and the state has not been able to define where that line is they lose their license never before in the history of counseling has any ethical code intruded into this kind of level in fact there's no existing ethical code including the american council in association that's adopted in about every point yes i mean i agree i mean the report itself that the legislature used as its primary authority it says that there's no research regarding minors we request that there should be rea is something of a disparity between what's said in the executive summary and what actually exec layer on of the executive summary does not match the actual substance of the report from and that is troubling and that shows some of the political issues that are at stake here this is what we're talking about is an individual who has a right to set their counsel in objectives and has a right to be able to choose a counselor to align their struggles whatever that is in this case same sex attractions with their objective and the counselor now is trying to give counsel which is advice and and advocating for that client to reach those objectives but they don't know where the line is and it looks like it's just a political agenda that has crushed the speech one of the things that your honor judge smith you like that might be conduct and yet the supreme court with the government that's what the government argued and the supreme court said no now they alternately upheld the statute because of the broad compelling interest but the point is they found banning material support for these terrorist type of organizations to include speech because that's how one of the ways that they would actually carry out the material support is free speech in this case the record evidence by the counselors and their client and the  affidavits that were submitted city state only one thing that their counsel is done through talk those aversive therapy paraphrase that's like looking at the bottom meat decades ago one hundred years ago and so you can't have any counseling because they did it one hundred years ago those are not used in the certainly decried not used by our clients we're not arguing about that we're talking about what they say and despite what was said that we didn't advise the court what takes place in counseling we did the affidavits stated and we made it in the oral argument what takes place as this court clearly i think has been struggling with with where this line is drawn is speech and it's speech when it advocates or has a viewpoint in this particular case to change or to reduce any kind of same sex attractions behavior mantic feelings toward a person of the same gender if you affirm them you're ok the subject matter of same sex attractions triggers the statute if you go this way to affirm your fine if you go this way to urge change to counsel change or reduction even of attractions  behaviors you violate the law now they want to say it's treatment but the treatment is done through words and that's all it's done with me i'm respecting the defendants in this case the the state particularly i think the case and comment versus walters is directly on point they were allowed to talk about marijuana they were allowed to give their opinion about marijuana but they couldn't tell the client you might want to take marijuana for medicinal purposes when i talk about writing  prescription of a pick up the pick up were didn't seem to find it very i know that it was troubling because even in the end of l a p d case was for people that wanted to bypass the licensing and education and training requirements under free speech well that's obviously not a free speech claim and so the n a a p case deny that so that's not a free speech issue but they did say this there was no evidence in the statute that they were trying to regulate con of the content of the message that was done within the counseling arena conic came after that and said they're building on and double a p both ninth circuit cases and said what's at issue there with the not a llowing the doctors to advise in favor of medical marijuana was speech that was content based that triggered it and it was you point based your honor just briefly the court below did not grant the counselors the third party standing in this case there's a case the pennsylvania psychiatric association or society cases directly on point they have a relationship an interest with these clients that assures that they will have adequate representation the counseling codes require that they represent or what let me take it with to the district court said and i want to hear what you have to say about it because the district court said that in order to satisfy the injury prone to the third party standing requirement the plants were required to prevail on the merits yeah terms of analysis isn't that putting the cart before the horse it's the top colleges you don't have standing you don't you can't prevail on the merits you don't have standing so so what evidence do you have what evidence have you presented to the district court that your clients or that others were actually injured in their ability from bringing suit the declaration of dr nomen who's the point one of the plaintiffs in the case specifically says that he has a minor clients in counseling they know about the law they know about the restrictions clients other than those who have already or separately sued correct in fact the one that separates it is are not to our plates clients and he specifically says that they do not want to be revealed and it would be damaging and hurtful to them yet and that would be adequate to do it under pseudonym because they don't want to even have the risk of them this is a sensitive issue when you have a minor struggling with something that they don't want to do the last thing they want to do is have the world somehow know about it in a deposition or somehow leak out they are fearful and they want their counselor to represent them thank you donna thank you very much thank flip when for your really helpful and vigorous arguments in this very interesting and very important and very difficult case thank you all very much