they exist without the statute would have to adjudicate those defenses and ask the league who question as to whether the evidence it has it is there is at least a reasonable basis for the submission you're not answering the question lynch which is the plaintiff's expert never said personal never said that the rendering was completely in inaccurate what he said was there are aspects of it that he believed to be inaccurate policeman things like that he doesn't say that the rendering is completely out of the realm of what that rendering should look like and indeed if you look at their architect's rendering although there's a difference in tree line i would suggest that it's not drastically different it's not the empire state building that we're talking about the judge has provoked and the plaintiffs expert and said  lap statute if it is the plaintiff's burden to show that there is no reasonable basis in fact or law and i'm maintaining that once  demonstrated that there was a reasonable basis that their basis one is the plans that were available to them the information that was available to them and the expertise that was applied to that there is no possibility that the plaintiffs can overcome that at that point no matter what standard use because the district court having found that there was some reasonable basis that some some reasonable juror could look at this information and come contradict it then the district court should involve the case along well and that that was going to be the second part of my answer your honor which is i'm not certain that that is correct in fact i would suggest that it's not because what you have at this point is not a situation in which an expert in saying there is no possible way that someone could have come up with this rendering given the information that they had at the time and i would be hard pressed to think that there be a situation where that's what this would say it could be ok you're saying it doesn't turn on the and again i'm sorry there are probably a couple of answers one being after the construction trees aren't going to be mature trees they're going to be new trees and so i would argue that the renderings actually more accurate for the beginning of  once the constructions only i would also say that as pointed out they were denied certain prongs that may have made the accuracy somewhat more  more accurate had they been given those drawings that they reveal to the conservation commission what the limitations were on what they had been presented but finally answered that i would give of course they don't have to be one hundred per cent accurate to be protected by the statute they can also minutely have some measure of inaccuracy so long as they had a reasonable basis in fact or law for the they produced and the anti slapp statute this is a matter of legislative choice for massachusetts as to how far ahead it intends to extend the protections  say that secure a rational one might say there are some state and federal constitutional constraints interpretating this statute that way care and on the basis that professionals have the right really anyone has the right to assist the petitioner and by assisting the petitioner they are themselves being part of the petitioning process they were exercising their right to present to a conservation commission information that was going to be useful or necessary to the conservation commission's decision about the building project and cases are clear that their mood ation does not matter it doesn't matter if they are petitioning because they are getting paid it doesn't matter if they are petitioning because being personally decided that they want to also think that they produced the drawing in order to affect the result that it's clear from even one complaint which says they produced this drawing to effect a particular result they produced it knowing there was going to be provided to the conservation commission they provided it to the conservation commission and then they stood up at a meeting and presented it to the conservation commission and that's the sole big as for why they have been started by pointing out that in state law to the state highest court the state's highest court has repeatedly said that the petition activity and the words of the statute encompass both i'm not sure you