also apologize for some reason despite the testing we were able to do this last week i was unable to connect by video this this matter presents slightly different than the order appealed and go down the go down decision deferred to another day the question of whether an order addressed to the merits of a ruling under the anti snap statute is immediately appealable if we contend that this order is still on the spectrum of o rders that would fall within the cloud of rule order doctrine because the district court's decision here was in essence that the statute does not apply at all even when those statements are protected statements under under the statute and we contend that does sound so given that you have some real argument is the district court was simply wrong on its decision that the anti slapp statute did not apply here the district court relied very heavily and quoted from the main law court decision angola debt versus mainly media so you can you tell us why you think the district court did not read  godat properly yes your honor the the god that mainly media holding we contend does does not stand for the principle that the main anti slab statute never applied to broadcasters or media defendants when those defendants are providing a forum to a citizen to make statements that are covered by the  statute and so for example specifically the mainly media court stated that when a party uses the newspaper to broadcast the party's own petitioning activities and that would be covered issue the other the the other aspect of the mainland mainly media holding is the court went on to say or the party seating seeking to invoke the statute is a party that used the newspaper to broadcast the party's own petition activities in the mainly media court had referenced in fact two prior decisions in maine the shelling the shelling decision and the  that's right and our position is that the mainly media holding does not stand for the proposition that only the letter writer can can invoke the statute or the newspaper has to rely on the letter writer being joined as a defendant to raise the statute a letter to the editor does not really have any inherent meaning or value unless it is published by the newspaper so the mainly media decision must mean that if the letter writer is protected by the statute the media outlet that provides the forum for that speech is also protected otherwise there would not be it would not be necessary for the main immediate decision to have added that that additional  space for application of the statute and here we are we have the added complication that the letter writer in our case sally pipes did in case her motion to dismiss was granted on personal jurisdiction grounds and on failure of service of process grounds some six months following the court's decision on investor's business daily anti slow motion and so again our position is that maine law should not be read to contemplate that parties can avoid not to join the letter writer or in this case waiting to serve the letter writer with process much after the motion to dismiss the media outlet and and  circumvent the statute if that's main law then whenever a person whether it's on a talk show or a radio broadcast or a letter to the editor in plaintiff would just sue the media outlet and not name the name the speaker as a defendant and our position is that that cannot the wording does raise the possibility for plaintiffs like dr frenchie in this case to make this distinction  here we don't we don't believe the district court necessarily fell into that distinction the district court's decision specifically found that whether pipe's was engaging in petitioning activity the court said was irrelevant at present because types is not a party invoking the statute well that's the error it's it's protection at all certainly main anti protection where the statute in maine intends to confer substantial rights on the a case that involves letters to the editor and the mainly media god the god that mainly media holding itself does cite to those cases and describes them as  cases where anti stop protection did apply and so far only point here is that what mainly media decision was making and it may be somewhat in divergence from massachusetts but the decision meant to say that if the media publisher is providing a forum for the citizen to exercise the petitioning activity or petitioning rights as defined in the statute then then the citizen is september th and so the petition was filed after a reply brief in this matter that case petitions the supreme court to look at the issue of whether anti slapp statutes if the media outlet had been joined also the statute would apply equally all right thank you statute itself just or only you you mentioned the shelling case and the shelling case made a very interesting made in a very interesting point which is that the eddie slap statute in maine was designed to protect the  activists from as the shelling case said from suits by developers who were trying to wash their participation in or intimidate them with respect to public matters that's why the approach that i'd be  use taking beer is flawed just as you read directly from the decision in doubt debt and and the you stole my thunder but i'll repeat it unless a newspaper is petitioning on its own behalf the newspaper is not exercising its own right to petition god dead focus not on the right but who is exercising the right and it went on to say that unless they are printed unless they are presenting their own grievance and their own petition with their with the request the government redress it then they're not entitled to the protection and the and the way the statute is written is in the disjunctive st it deals with newspapers unless the it's applicable to newspaper articles unless those articles not unless those articles constitute a newspaper petitioning on its own be have or the party seeking to invoke the the yeti slap statute is a party as as the district court found this was essentially a news story that this was a petition by anybody it was it was a news story and if we if we follow to the logical conclusion the arguments being made but b d then any news story that contains defamatory statements is subject to the yeti slap statute that wasn't the purpose of the statute and the law court in maine clearly recognized that there to be engaged in petitioning activity in that case the it may very well follow that the newspaper which employed him as a reporter is not if the reporter is covered the newspaper is not here however we have  were the subject of all sorts of petitioning activity around the time of this article she flatly says that she is entitled to the protection of the anti slapp statute so that is a distinction right there with god that the district court here never made a decision on that said well she's no longer a party because there's no jurisdiction and you never served her with process so your brother says well this is a neat way for you of aid the requirements of the statute you just don't serve the person who is protected and you go after the media outlets which published the article i don't read godat as saying anything about the circumstances here much less about  the noose the publication and editorial judgment and deciding it would publish this article because it directly affects matters of major public concern which could reasonably enlist public participation i thought that  both of these prongs were not actually dealt with and godat and that it may be quite an over reading of godat to say served by the time i came in the emotions to dismiss spending but but but let me address what you're saying just toro mentioned the full stole the case and that that involved a  thank you forgive me forgive me your honor the st the st all ok so it's essentially the same case as we as we have here where a reporter said i'm providing a forum i cover these people all the time i'm the messenger a stole all rejected that rejected that position and said no matter how much no matter how much you might consider yourself a messenger or a forum you are not going to be extended t protections unless you are presenting your own grievances that ok may i may i refer you to god that footnote three b because the news reports at issue in this appeal tie to the facts of that case do not constitute commissioning activity we need not speculate on when news reporting or editorializing might constitute petitioning activity so the court expressly remicade its decision and basically i think precluded the argument that you're room rider who has made it judgement is saying something worth public attention because it will lead to petitioning activity  if not downright be directly petitioning activity the supreme court has said that the st amendment protects editorial judgments by publications and here the text of the main statute plainly would cover that that situation so i think you're setting up a special rule for the media which is not supported by the text of the statute and godat never said anything have had its own views but it didn't articulate them it didn't present any grievance of its own and both covered it and the district court focused on the nature of the petitioning activity in here that was what started it or it was a news story  said they didn't make them known therefore it didn't qualify as petitioning activity and we if we were to adopt the rule if we were to adopt the rule that i b d is suggesting here what we would have us anytime there's a news story reporting statute is only applicable to newspaper articles not all media or newspaper articles unless it's petitioning on its own behalf the party seek one of the party that's a different rule for the other part ads that present issues of concern that in fact congress has investigated and indeed the background of this is a number of malpractise suits against your client on the public record in the federal district court in maine which received some coverage but here this is part of the pipes article percents as as part of the a larger problem throughout the united states the adequate medical care  d what she calls less than competent doctors providing that care to the patients the veterans in the hospital and as a subject of major concern so the newspaper makes a decision it is going to present this as part of its public mission  it does not itself editor corey allies it chooses instead to permit op ed page pieces you're saying that get no protection because it's a media pardon me newspaper or publication like a new paper not at all judgments not at all b d has all of the protections that all of the codefendant media outlets had in this case but only i b d made this and he slipped motion the st amendment they have all sorts of defenses under the libel law they are free to pursue them but no no no question is the antis slap statute kek guest all right so what in the text says that media who publish any written or oral statement are denied the protection of that statute well that's the that's the gaudet case to which under substance and ok rule you so forth and so on ok great we're going a little bit in circles at this point i thank you i wanted to ask one other question earlier in your argument you seem to indicate that it had to be a personal grievance of the person making the statement are you really saying that well i got i think the case is say in the sense that the news if the newspaper wanted to take a position we are if we are offended we're appalled that we can and then and now could you answer my question  bill how does a ring that's it's just a just a quick reach the same conclusion and this is the district court the law clerk concluded that the newspaper was documenting current events and did not express its own views  ground up ok i'll try to do it in one sentence except except for the brief with respect to the appeal ability or not of this is this the collateral order which we say doesn't qualify for i rest on the brief but we seem to be way beyond that thank you thank you we have two minutes of a bottle thank you so a few points to  e yes that was the district court's finding however we contend that the the emphasis or the focus the tenor of that finding was the court's finding that article did not articulate any of investor's business daily views but the court did not address and in fact characterized as irrelevant our primary point that it was sally pipes who was offering and publishing an op ed this statute the main anti slapp statute and its plain text contains nothing of this news media non media distinction was the evidence before the court and if we if we expand on this media non media distinction it creates all kinds of issues in addition  inviting citizens to engage in a debate and there are a number of individuals or entities involved in the actual publication the making of the statement individuals who contribute to the publication of the statement we don't think that the our position is that the text thank you the text of the statute does not make any of the any of those distinctions so we would ask that this court argument in the state's case attorney pierce and attorney blair you should disconnect from the hearing at this time