every case i've ever looked at when i innocent instruction has been found is the innocent instruction has been offered i and the trial court and the happily motion to prejudice i did not offer reasons for the ruling but i have to assume i had to believe the only reason for that ruling is the argument that was embraced was offered by s i p c which  told us that it does not did i understand you correctly i probably this spoke your honor yes that was the only grounds for dismissing the complaint  what is the innocent construction you can't just say i don't think you can say well the s a construction rule should apply and then not after the innocent construction and they didn't do that in the trial court  dismissed it with prejudice but like really has yes that's all they talk about is the innocent conscripting rule i agree that's all they talk about but nowhere in their motion to dismiss page eight letter should construe it and construe it so that in an innocent why they don't do that the st time and i mean our great i i point this out and i say what is the not that the rule applies they obviously think it does their argument does they just don't tell us what the innocent construction is now in their apple e's brief they say the innocent construction in the st sentence that says on january th two thousand and fifteen in can change connecting with my terminations of your employment i sent a letter informing you that you were not allowed on that he's not supposed to trust past in the future date already given that warning to saddam understand me that warning yes you don't you mention that they they don't say what the innocent construction  there's a paragraph five there motionlessness say the subject letter was a notice not to trespass not an accusation so it isn't that they're setting forth what their emphasis struction is it's a notice not an accusation well i they it can't be construed bout way your honor me the court that made it very clear that even though there is such a thing as an innocent constructing cannot reach for and for something that's not there it's more than just a warning they say here that you have they say here you are just  but they're claiming and he's done it repeatedly this is no way in our opinion that this letter can be construed as simply a warning particularly when you read the st sentence where they always said you had your this letter was sent to the sheriff or posted on faceb represent him and trust as charges the only justification for sending a letter to me is to inform my client that the form of his mcanally former attorney that they think he decision to publish the said false statements was loaded bit baited by his dislike for mcanally so you don't actually allege publication but you allege information and believe that there was publication do you believe it's do you believe that if you were given the opportunity to amend that you could amend to allege publication we believe so your honor and if you look at paragraph six it isn't a conclusion or a way but we do a wage publication and paragraph six but again that's based upon a seat information questions from the p does your honor but that complaint is deficient on its face and this is an unusual circumstance and as much as if you look at the context of the litigation st of all this letter because it gives it context the because of the threats going on and face the the as i p c sent this letter to keep off of their property eventually they were awarded a planetary injunction to do that but prior to that that injunction being issued we wanted to make sure that there was no question of the fact that he had been mcanally also copies went to the sheriff in johnson county as well as williamson county where the property was located there was no publication by s i p c we gave the letter to be sheriff's deputy they are subject to a privilege and giving them notice as i think counsel as as suggested is not publication because they were simply taking the the letter as part of their official duties serving it and taking notice of it d so there is no on the face of the complaint to there is no issue that there was no publication by anyone other than to be served on the punitive trespass and then i don't know how you could ever and enforce the the trespass and it was necessary in this case because of the i've been making for over a year where he was threatening violence and it just tells me that the process by which this got dismissed is somewhat flawed because the the complaint that we need to cite and i came to the conclusion that because the the the writing itself cited a statute that required notice and the end and labeled itself that the court could as a matter of law assert this has to be an innocent construction you think that it can be amended in any way to lead defamation in li notice that it simply is not slander as a matter of law so i don't think it can be amended he never asked to amend but i don't think there's construction are those two different concepts well i think that they merge share that their names are if they may marriage i don't disagree with that but they are two different legal concepts right oh yeah absolutely  but in the end in the issue of whether this is the gravel none of the the writing is slanderous per se i think that you have to recognize it's a statutory notice and therefore it can't be slanderous per and i think that's that's part of the trouble i'm having is in your motion to dismiss you really don't talk about the stench story not as you talk about innocent construction rural south that was what was whoa you know this is not you know here take this out of context this is a statutory notice and because it's a statutory notice and says that on its face it has to be given and may be innocent construction and i don't know how else to say it you know as a matter of law it cannot be slander so isn't that an innocent construction that the law says this is a notice if you thought in the past that you had the right to come on the ass as i can see properly please be advised that you don't you don't have that right in the future they didn't have to send this letter they've already don't want you coming on the property and by the way we don't want you to getting into you know the budget we don't want you anymore committing all this list of crimes that you committed in the past and they can load it up there or they can hold up their letter with anything they want to say about him because they think that they have a right to give him notice when they've already given him the notice that the whole point of the whatever is to give them a nd warning right brought that's not what they did they did more than a warning they went beyond the warning they committed and they accused him repeated lee repeatedly that's mr ok gentleman thank you both for your arguments this matter will be taken under advisement and we will issue an order and your course have a great day thank you thank you