of the letter isn't that what you've said up in that characterization a threats of harm we don't get one of the allegations we don't know what type of car doesn't how can she pursue a twenty four petition since she doesn't know anything else i don't know how she can i do know that the standards are that she must plead the statement with sufficient the purpose of the disclosure here not to receive spiritual counseling but instead to find out how to handle the situation wasn't really packed more in the nature of risk management rather ball since this is a going back to the original concept this defamation claim stated here has to withstand it to six fifteen motion but you said an additional layer is the privilege if we rule on the issue of privilege as a result of this proceedings that ruling stands and the rest of this litigation if it goes forward correct and decide we accept all right so  through council can assert privilege correct that is correct so where's the privilege it's been waived by the pastor and the president early the member of the flock has an opportunity to raise privilege and has declined to do so that kind of information i just don't see it there's no admission there's no confession by the writer the writers just simply seeking guidance it's not to relieve her or him from piece supporting really any of them in fact being in fact it seems that we want this court to be the first court to do all bunch of things with regard to this case well this case is different than some of the other ones that have been decided in that we don't know what the statements were in the latter we only have a characterization of those statements and now they're lighter so sure how then can you for a a level of particularity with regard to defamation cases that are also emphasized that we're not saying that you can't sleep inside information believe if we did that then the only time you could ever have a snigger case is if the basis for that belief on the we're i guess the in the my question is if the only place you learned getting this information now from your belief is someone else's summary more characterization of the letter how do we accept that and it's not being able to withstand this scrutiny for two six fifteen well  essence it has to come from somewhere and the there was a case to do brain versus marshall field's which side of the supreme court case calls in versus state that said that the courts focus on the effect of the publication on the person who heard it or the person who read it and here we have the effect of the publication on the person who read it namely the pastor and and ultimately the diocese which which in most restrictions on him they would let this child go to the effort without adult supervision as a result four corners of the complaint there are some there are some cases all that suggest that you could look at admissions all swear in the records that were previously made but generally six fifty motion would be based on the four corners of the complaint and the devices that are doing good by requesting  is can you still commit the tort of defamation per se void using a minor child something falsely that would otherwise be a felony i would say so they can and that's that's sort of the case it doesn't make sense that we treat she absolutely did not do say any of those things and she had never heard of this before it was not always worse as boys that might have been a characterization by my counsel not me my per foot that b b s all was and go back to that to that scene doesn't matter one of the things that the defendants in that case argued was that well nobody knows who sandusky is maybe they're just talking about the town in ohio and the courts that come from that this it make any sense how that's where cedar point is that would court said that's nonsense and that's what the that's what the defendants are doing here they're asking for all sorts of details that are not germane do not form the just or sting of the allegation like they want to know what specific harm was threatened they want to know spiritual counseling pastor does he have a david souter simply says that that the writer wanted to know about church law and policy well there is a whole book in church law called the code of canon law that anybody could look at they could even read in your original latin if they wanted to ban dead and church was doesn't talk about spirituality if you want spirituality with a case for church law that shows like how bishops are appointed what happens to a how to make an invalid marriage all sorts of things like that how how ministers in goods in and monitors the conduct of people that sounds a lot of the legal system and in fact it is a legal system there is nothing anywhere in this record that shows that this writer in talking to pastor dole was trying to find out how to become closer to god or how to conform her life in accordance with the church's moral teachings this was this was it was really a hint to my some other deacon stealing money from the offertory and i need to know who  accusation about somebody else it's not an admission that confession it's a it's a it's an accusation and then the third one is that the is that it has to be under the rules of the religion regarding confidentiality for the spiritual counsel and here we have this pastor when told several people about this this was not going to the confessional where the priest under kept the law that's also in canon law is not supposed to tell anyone if he does it's excommunication well he didn't matter all anyone he told he told our client so many aspects he told i asked an attorney about those aspects to that relate those to us under those circumstances and i have some cases on the put restrictions on our claims child and to tell others about it and explain the reasons why the separate you do it in confession that's what you do when you're trying to conform with what you think is church policy then i will never know that they say that he's called snyder versus populist i'm saying that that talks about acts of a third party in that and the they seem to want to expand that to say that any basically any time a person talks to a priest  matter that it's not going to that it's going to be privilege but in snyder the that there was a will challenge him the person was simply she went to see this clergyman every single week or every other week for many many years and once obviously no opportunity to challenge that meeting in the trial court we didn't even have an opportunity to challenge that meeting in our opening phrase this court as the application was not filed out until that the time that the petition was filed but you did as you said before know we didn't we certainly didn't have the opportunity to address these facts as as allegations of a petition taken to address whether or not if these specific facts had been lashed whether they would be sufficient to state a point for identity of the person who provided the information to the prettiest if we don't raise it now that there's no way to raise it to protect that person or from the disclosure of his or her identity will you just said that there might be if you fact th penitent once the letter is identified i think it would be the next step my statement was if that person truly is repenting for something that may or may not be criminal and from your perspective your argument we petitioners counseled was referring to the incident not the writer statement about the incident so if there is a magic announcement that there was some incident that there was some incident that was discussed between janie joe and the pastor i can bet we don't