even exist a ten mile long derrick twelve miles why that he doesn't even have that apparatus that would be like telling a person that i'm going to shoot you in the face right now except i don't have a gu mr davis is using a lot of colorful metaphorical expressions to basically let them now i'm going to continue to remind you every day e mails so i don't think you can take it literally that that's exactly what he meant especially when he doesn't even have a means of doing so just to record what the jury was be evidence and the extrinsic evidence which i'll just kind of address right now we have a situation where these three men when they're called to testify their character is they're eliciting evidence that they  in tears they serve on all these boards there are these wonderful glorying individuals and that piggybacks on his limited rights cross examine them on that i think that because some much evidence when and that these this was in mr davis was not happy with the outcome that you know that he had committed during the investigation of that they discovered crimes he committed he was prosecuted for those and unhappy with chiquita and savage that information could have been presented by the specific details were not probing the you could have still accomplished that same goal without that and just as far as the language and alighting as pointed out in the break at one point he he said i'm going to quote unquote are near assn up in cool i mean nobody took that literally that he was going to say to them so why so the language didn't necessarily l a is just different he credible and terms of the victims proceed to be a threat that's a subjective statement on their part the issue is objective reasonable for someone to interpret it that way and when you have the seven year backdrop all this litigation all of this you know statements i'm going to earn your ass up in court i'm going to do this i'm going to do that i'm a reasonable person would not necessarily have taken converses always had this incredible language directed at three straight women and it's escalating escalating escalating as my colleagues and i'm not sure it's a jury would be required to say he's used this language before but he's never acted out against any of these people so i think the things are escalating the fact that he's never acted before doesn't necessarily demonstrate he's not going to act now absolutely that is correct and that i agree with that however if you look at his past behavior i think it's a pretty  there was a comp and now to begin so there's no need to restore him at all and then even after this court's opinion came down during that hearing evaluator testified at the hearing and aware that this was now an initial compensate hearing determined that  testify remained to say make a new decision you have to make a new decision because you left out information but did not order that the district court could not consider any of the same information that had been considered previously just had to make a new determination based on all of the facts including any statement the defendant wanted to make her x that's not the right so i guess moving on to the the jury found that mr davis did have a mr davis is communications looked at by objective reasonable person showed a serious expression of intent to do harm here and for subjective intent there was a subjective intent was proven  there's no hint of jester conditional language and i think the context or matters a whole lot this came as the culmination of a years long campaign of harassment intimidation and it seems to correspond with the dismissal of mr davis final but all lawsuits i don't think that matters as most of us argument is i don't know if that addresses her argument or argument that post tool to carry out that it's fantastic and anybody reading it would say it's fantastic if it includes as part of the aspect of fantastical sort of porsche right that would be a context in which you have a fantastic element to a threat but the ultimate threat which is so i conviction increases to more history point by one who just were determined that according to this court decision in march and basically virginia north carolina systems are materially the same and that both give you a bench trial below and a until you don't we lawyers don't control our clients even though sometimes like to but we've gotten i don't know how many motions letters whatever since the appeals been fun i mean he is  it may be that this was what was necessary what was reasonable well i think this case the difficult thing to know well respectfully st of all at the judge even said that there is no sentence he could impose that would deter other conduct so if you're going to go from eighty seven dollars to one hundred and forty four dollars after having made that statement then anything about that is just arbitrary and arbitrariness is a piece of discretion so to the extent that i don't know