awarded these damages the amount was excessive this is a fifty to one ratio the consensus excuse me the compensatory award was a thousand dollars a trial judge we're fifteen thousand dollars and we believe that under the constitutional now since that was you have agreed upon in our brief that that is well in excess of the ratio that is considered to be a guy ost under was placed on notice that punitive damage from being sought really the thrust of her you know in the essence of our position is that these were never asked for and the cases in throughout the strong preference that defendant be placed on notice that he's damaged that he's damages are in play that's the the the of the name of the case  excuse me i'm sorry it's a brief but the because of the exceptional nature of these damages these can relate back to the at least the west fifty forty thousand dollars he didn't say that he was seeking compensatory damages but the context of the prayer for relief will indicates that that was it was he specifically used the word compensate that he he was he had asked for forty thousand dollars in his claim and that point is you believe that it was a needs but with regard to the defamation case the defense took the position that there was going to be an award on of the there was going to be a finding of defamation and it was status believe there is evidence that he was receiving social security benefits and the focus was if you reputation was damaged and how have you proven that this is  unable to get a job because a potential employer through by and saw the sign you lost out on other economic opportunities because people see the sign and think you're a liar a thief and a sex offender  violate constitutional issues this is the so this is an issue that should have been dealt with before the case got to trial and scott it was it wasn't asked so we believe in no matter what the trope its intentions were and it's clear from her decision that the trial judge was bothered by the society and felt that decision than this this was a case with just a an unusual sort of witnesses and it was perhaps unintentionally every one so it's almost impossible for this court on review given the standard of review to find that the trial judge here didn't find the case improvement now he he crossed appellate as made a number of arguments with regards to his ability to his requests to amend the complaint at the of the evidence and i really don't have anything more to say about that either i think it's clear the trial court made the correct decision and that the request was procedurally very proper so coming down to the ignition the original counts based upon the rest of our court made a finding based on the credibility of the witnesses and there is no reason why that finding should be set aside so  law still provides that even in determining whether to work to pursue nominal damages or or to work nominal damages or to award something more there has to be a relationship no of course you can't do that i'm going to correct example of a motion to conform the pleadings to the proofs at the close of the evidence is clear that evidence came in during the trial that of an additional amount of damages that is related to the the wrong or the negligence or the whatever the cause of action is but doesn't address the the points that despite the resumption of the images are still has to be a relationship between the evidence and the amount of the damages and the tro court hear me specific findings as to why she was assessing the compensatory work that she did she found the plaintiff was not credible she found the evidence that he provided as to the amount he should receive his compensatory damages was