about the way the market here had suddenly become competitive their private owners started looking for a buyer they retained the offer of one of their board members something to share because there is whether or not the petitioner seeking to use the process is opposed to the outcome of that process because the way california murder laid out the holistic test some time what do you have besides the fact that the world they wanted harm they found many actions those actions lost no they got relief of the state and other things at times district judge that each and every petitioner lawsuit that one filed was objective lea reasonable there was a lot of fighting about that in this record we had briefing back and forth about the basis the legal basis for each of the suits here d c argued they were legally frivolous one link explained why they had a strong legal basis and the district judge that were caught resolve those in one week's favor here d c made a decision not to challenge any of that on appeal all over the map on what you need to show we're going to give you a definition here's a definition has to be directly baseless and then you have to have the subjective intent to harm through the process rather than  to have a more flexible test there the silence from the majority is deafening and it's not like the majority didn't reserve any issues it did reserve the issue of misrepresentation specifically said we're not address that but no indication that they care one way or the other whether it's one super five if their objective the reasonable they're protected by the first amendment they can form the basis for a share petitioning claim or an antitrust lawsuit the court also specifically mentions california motor which and we've consistently here to it since california so it's very hard to read the case and say well but california motor says something different no he recently said california voters completely consistent because california voter involved a pattern of quote baseless repetitive claims at all and of course in the background we have the first amendment principle which it would be i think odd to say the least if you can engag record to come of the other way to say it was not a sham right you can do that you can say well this one clearly it wasn't baseless you can't do it in reverse and peary specifically warns courts against trying to do what it planted which is when the puerto rico supreme court said the only way we have the ability to intervene when we filed a petition to intervene in laying out why it had a substantial margin of interest intervene why the franchise agreement period but some of them are and some of them happen to have merit that's the scenario that some of the other circuits have dealt with and said well we're we're it's a mixed bag we're not going to grant you immunity across the board if they're all reasonable then i think the only way you could get around that would be show some other either misrepresentation some other type of fraud on the court which is something that you're really express the reserved as as an option you think there's nothing that could get you won't hear it because perry is clear that it's a it's an independent requirement but if you're going to relax p r read as some courts have done then you would you would at least need something else whether it's that some of the s contributed part of the legal fees for that the records a little bit unclear this court found that one they did not pay for for any of that but regardless of the much more important point is point nor is that you can work together concerted action to seek any competitive action from the government there's nothing unusual about saying we're we're both incumbents we're both threatened by this new entrant let's get together and work the case before the court today is a much more egregious case pattern case out there all of which found shape this is not a new law this is not a new case this is not a new and then balance that against the other side's rights to me and i trust laws which is the consumer's in said that the risk of harm in a series is much higher so do we have now here he would not actually talking about commercial speech would this isn't just looking into a trust conspiracy we're talking about actual petitioning of the government citizen which i thought it is not down in one of the lower t he asked the court apply it in the first circuit thank you