on my internet membership records website was false and misleading allegedly had great prejudice  summary seeking sanctions against me for allegedly making an improper motion to the probate court to enforce its decree of distribution in that case but this is this detweiler is that correct that's correct your honor and she is reporting something that is that is on the that is on the website is that correct your honor and it was also published in the in the bar newspaper the bar journal thought she's repeating things that are that she had learned from other places not things that she knew on her of her own knowledge what she gave to the court your honor was the summary that had been published on the membership records website but she didn't have any firsthand knowledge of any of that information that you know and she didn't provide anything to them that was in addition to what was published by the bar journal but no she submitted the summary and and that was in july two thousand and four and we were very careful conspire we allege with a state agency the state bar in other words the bar publishes something on my membership records which is available to the whole world but the people that use it our adversaries who have a purpose know it's it's like the end of trust parallel action idea that's that was our conspiracy theory but i didn't see facts that you allege to show the conspiracy no facts alleged show the conspiracy honestly you've demonstrated state action well when you have the bar publishing something and then another person picking it up and it and we allege that it's an invitation on the bar's part and we allege that mistake while or had abettor which we allege as well and that doesn't even require a conspiracy it's when it's in the sustaining in the accomplishment of a wrongful act and we allege that so either way we felt we had a wyler's publication of the summary to judge the government was a repetition and independently actionable actionable under common law in california but when we had all you we didn't need the common i did but i don't have to now tell me how tell me how old you helped you won't you help us because what we had to establish under common law defamation was that the second publication july two don't know if it is or not i believe i believe it well it's a difference that you're going to different you've got a different stuff that within the same within the same website yes and in in any oia been found on the same website so how does that make it a different publication this is all you explains that and it says simply here's an analogy explaining why a publication on a second different website a different website this is the thing went well but when you analyze the web site in the internet these are different pages and the same fact pattern was in or young there was the same united states army corps of engineers website but the publications were found in different pages of that website and this court he that was sufficient to make the second pleading timely and that's what we essentially rely on and we think if you form a warrior we should w law that the single publication rule does apply to the internet much the same as any book or magazine is concerned the council papers has raised an issue about this is the same website this is the state bar web site was published mr khanna tele was disciplined in one thousand nine hundred ninety stipulated to the discipline and as they have for over fifty years the state bar of california has summarized the discipline the bar journal on the web site itself and there were advertisements or notices within the each marginal at least some sixteen or more times indicating that the bar journal was going to be put on you click on any of those that it's one web site that was that state bar website they just changed to technically u r l so is today if you talk in you type in the original u r l which is calabar dot org you could do the same website as the new address mr mr can't tell us since well it's a different website and underwrote a that's some difference and i disagree because under oath they had two different websites it was not clear what the second u r l was but the first one was a national site and this the second one was something different this is in fact the same site just a different u r l and if you type in both you go to the state for web site also interestingly the changeover was made in the year two thousand and two and there's a declaration of nancy mccarthy at s c or four forty eight and in the requests for judicial notice the evidence was that the everything that was on that web site the initial web site  from a different u r l went over to the newspaper which site in the year two thousand and two everything got transferred over including the february two thousand additional of the state bar journal that had mr cannot tell a summary on it so even if it even if that was technically a different website underwrote even assuming it apply the statute of limitations begin to run on that single publication rule from the year two thousand and two and mr can you tell i having filed in two thousand and five is still time audience there is no difference here you saw in the can direct case in the california court of appeal held that you had differences based on the target audience is this is the exact same website the exact same audience as in two thousand the year two recognized that when the state in fact cannot be stated to support the basic claim that the case can properly be dismissed and i think that's true dear mr kennett fellow went through a second amended complaint he failed to allege by that point any facts that would support  an underlying conspiracy or aiding abetting or direct state action liability on behalf of misstep while there's no allegation that she acted at the behest of the state bar was carrying out a state bar function or that she was any way differently situated than any other public member there was simply no linkage of actions between the state bar and martha detweiler all she did was access information on the website and to bring that to the probate courts attention the jensen court pointed out that in that situation there was a physician a private division who was under contract with the government to to review the mental health of potential individuals who might be hospitalized the court and jensen recognized that the outcome would be totally different if a private party it hired dr robinson the defendant in that case to admit the plaintiff to the hospital so that's it to a doctor robson relied on a  false police report in admit making his decision to admit person who was a private individual and who was being requested to be incarcerated of behalf of a private person he would not have any liability are situations no different here you honour's the court would note and has noted already that missed out while it was simply relying upon publicly issued information by the state bar she had the right to rely nothing accurate any allegations there was a conspiracy like to respond to that yes i would your honor of aiding and abetting of course similar to conspiracy conspiracy of course requires an agreement or a meeting of the mind there was not aiding and abetting liability has been analyzed by the ninth circuit in case wrong in this case by the state bar actual knowledge by the alleged a baiter of that wrong and the baiters alleged debaters role in furthering that wrongful act by the state bar here there no knowledge i missed detweiler part no allegation that she knew that the state bar had done anything wrong in publishing but that require us to find the first find of a predicate wrong by the state yes yes or no we would we would have to go ahead and waters knowledge about a single publication or well iran it would have to to to know that not only that there would there have been a publication which he obviously knew but that that publication was wrongful that that publication was defamatory or that violated let me address the let me address the bar's point first because court has pointed out that that's the first element before we even get into whether dave winer has any liability at all and the bar stipulated in the case below that the second publication was timely in other words we had a stipulation in the briefs that in the event that the repetition in two thousand and four was actionable then it would be within the statute  don't think it's proper for them they argue now that there's a two thousand and two cut off date because that's not what we stipulated to in the in the district court secondly they are two separate publications site we have to look at here is we have to look at the audience the audience in the original publication to the internet of course we're california lawyers that's a whole different situation when the second publication is to the whole  we had we had a list and then at the end of the year they put to everybody out of that plane i don't think so i think the two different two different magazines you come up hold two different magazines to two different magazine covers and one listed one listed your your listing in february and the other than in december listed a summary of the year and listen everybody else a better place but those would not be two different publications i know what the second url address was in oh yeah we do know what it is here we do know they are different if you consider one page of a website not a different not a different website the council your bottom line on this is that a website is good there are two different websites are not identical any term pretty much have to maintain as with what a long way down this address before we get to a different term that's correct and we don't we don't have any authority for that that's what that's where if you came in for us here you would be extended for without a doubt but i think you would be comfortable with it because your audience in the second is membership records the whole world anybody that wants to see can't well that's what he did and so now we can hold that against putting it in two different places that people can find who are looking for different things in different