have please the court good afternoon and also to my my friend mr vice the chilling effect upon the exercise of st amendment rights may derive from the fact of the yes your honor since this is the defendant's motion however i think that the court below really misunderstood the case it's looking at it as if we are trying to prove a sexual harassment case which is not what we're trying to do recklessness i think it would be enough if we were trying to prove that this was a sexual harassment case i don't think that rises to recklessness in cases like this the context really matters remember in our briefing  articulated this that there was a long history and a very public history of mr when shall we call it sexual new conduct including some claims that were corroborated truth and enough to get whether they were his demands from his voice his demands from his power structure his demands from aid environment here that was completely you know it seems you know it's funny they talked in ph six  of the fact that none of this really came from mr when this was all simply because the organization like to do things in what they they are their words an old school manner you know and one might picture the series mad men but this is it doesn't have to come from his voice and even then is that really the line upon which we are going to draw a defamation complaint are we going to look at it and say well whether the words came from mr winds mou i thought that you would agree that the press release is that mr wind was responsible for getting the direction and was personally involved in the retaliation so i think that's why the questioning really focused on then instruct all the female cast members to strip down to more revealing clothing so if the right hand man comes in and says mr wins coming quick i think it's reasonable for her to believe it came from mr wynn now it gets transmitted to miss blume miss bloom relying upon her thirty years of experience trying these kinds of cases relying upon mr osborne who assisted in investigating the case nobody at this organization or really the head of this organization just blew enormous straws and harbored any doubts at all that this was the case they are allowed to be wrong the st amendment and the actual malice standard new york times versus sullivan and it's progeny allow you to make a mistake the only question is is this enough to rise to the level of recklessness yet our client didn't lie to her she doesn't believe she lied to her and even now she when people gave a statement saying we think that these portions are false as an accommodation to them as a result subsequent remedial measure yes they they changed it to try to make them happy but regardless  reports of mr wind sexual misconduct mr when everything seems your orchestrated for mr wynn the fact that mr wynn is you know he is like pauly and goodfellas and never speaks directly to anybody i don't think makes my client client if any i will be happy to continue answering questions but i see i have two and a half minutes left i'd like to reserve for rebuttal all right thank you stop the clock thank you right i will try this my apologies i hope it is an improvement oh much better much better right thank you my apologies again to the court so turning now back essentially agreed to the other issues they agreed to mr one was a public figure they agreed that the press release was actually false and all it didn't agree the district court said that it was going to assume that for purposes of this motion the press release  ms bloom or allow ms bloom to ignore all the other facts of which she was aware and there were lots of other facts which she was aware that chaos substantial doubt on this including as ms mullen said because we  professional i don't draft these things i left it to the lawyers to draft them in light of how they viewed it should be presented so again it's not like ms mullins is saying i made these strategic decisions about how is worded what it was characterized as she relied upon her lawyers and they are the ones who made i can't remember her exact term analogy made the editorial decision about what was it polluted or not and so if you look again at the evidence as a whole the entire picture ms blome statement that somehow mr wims counsel confirmed this by saying they would have no comment was just proven in discovery  is actually a false statement in her declaration because discovery revealed that she had back communicated with her client ms muslims and informed her client as muslims that mr windsor council had in fact said they needed an additional week's time in order to get back to her it was to put pressure on mr wynn to try and get him to give them money that was all purpose and in fact they used the word pressure in their own notes in describing what its purpose was just like in their own internal note they describe speculated how can we get this guy to come to the table and pay us money and then behave and then consider the substance again of the demand letter itself the demand letter purported to be a legal claim press release as she thought she could get away with that by the way she thought she could get away with anything because as she later told the district court in which she filed her answer and actually i should say she felt her answer before this motion was resolved was simply a claim directed at the company with whom mr wynn was no longer affiliated and as the trial court noted when i look through the evidence here originally a district court noted that was later proven to also be untrue but in fact they did not interview dismissed molina until after the press release had already issued and the discovery from that demonstrated that ms molina had in fact objected to many of the and that they had tried to get her to subscribe to a declaration additionally as the district court voted if the court looks at what they witness actually all testified to they all contradict the representation that are made in that press release i thought that the most and had nothing to do with mr wind it had nothing to do with being scantily clad as he explained it had to do with ms mom's work ethic and that they clashed and that they clashed from the inception of her role there all of that was of course conveniently omitted from the press release because it was inconsistent with the merits that ms bloom wanted to advance as part of her effort to get mr leverage on mr wynn to get her to pay her money of what she would have received forty percent of that i would say but last but not least and judge bennett this is a point i would like to comment with on a question you pose and that is the revised press re likely going to sue her and her quiet so she rushed out a revised press release changing all of the references from mr wynn and now changing them to generic people at the company a opposing counsel during argument to describe this is a subsequent remedial measure where this introduction of this objected to under some nevada evidence code barring subsequent remedial measures the group consciousness of wrongdoing there was not and in fact i believe they offered the corrected press release as part of their own motion as my recollection so here's what the evidence showed the district court and why the district court said there was a trial issue here against ms blome and what ms bloom was doing and that is the witnesses contradicted her bloom was engaged in and i'll use the word scheme to and to in attempt to get money out of mr wynn by asserting claims that in fact there were no client and the press release was all about putting pressure on him all the changes that she made to it to get this out and of course it was it was out i believe a matter of minutes after the lawsuit was filed is my recollection from the record she made all of these and in fact mr mr conne tam's contradicted many of these representations that they had actually happened again when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to mr wynn which is what the law requires believe every court that i am aware of has rejected the argument that a libel proof plaintiff dr never exists anymore in the law because it allows people to slander people that are in it difficult situation which is what she was willing to bet she could do she was willing to bet that mr wynn had been so wounded by these other allegations that he would not have the brass city and he would not come after her for issuing this bold press re miscalculated and under the law there is a trial issue of fact here the jury to decide that fact i think the court court's time was it has questions for me and i apologize again for the technology on a problem like this th think is far further from the truth that it was some kind of a shakedown that's far further from the truth than this press release was now additionally if we look at what he said was contradictory that the way that the press release was written that was the st version of it and the deponent actually testified as my client originally put in a sentence that mr when asked to do this we could look at the dancers vagina as that was one of the statements she said that was a bit extreme she was part of the editing process and our client is under no obligation to call our client to call her client a liar at that time uncontroverted testimony of the  during his deposition that yes the original version was probably closer to the truth as his memory is a good standard for a public figure to survive summary judgment in this case is very high and there's a reason for that in order reasonably prudent man or woman in this case would have published or would have investigated before publishing but whether the defendant entertains serious doubts that's also st versus thompson we do not have any serious doubt in fact we have no doubt and if the facts that are in the release may turn out to be proven false in a sexual harassment claim that's different than my client harboring serious doubts at the time of publication thank you your honors if you have