underlying both of these issues is the fact that the summary judgment standard was not followed by the district court but district court rather than viewing the evidence in light most favorable to missing of or ski weight the conflicting evidence and found in favor of the a nd group that we believe missed the th you should be here too is the group that were sent challenge letters and missed the board he was different than any of those persons she was the only member of that group when doing light most favorable a lemon others on that checklist were not residents at all and at least one of those eleven had not been seen in victory for years the nd issue was a defamation claim the key issue in that claim is then there was sufficient evidence of malice to go forward against a public official like ms support this standard requires proof of a mental state that of knowledge of the falsity of the statement and that is almost always proven by circumstantial evidence i'd like to focus on two of the false statements made by mr batchelor and miss the moment and miss easter the st was the issue of missing records altering individual defendants repeatedly claims that were missing records miss easter and miss loomis claimed even claims that miss de boer theater husband burned records the evidence shows that they knew they knew there were no missing record mr batchelor had in her possession copies of the town records for over eighteen months and was passed and paid for analyzing them and reviewing them mr easter and and then town clerk and chair with a blackboard respectively with two years prior to the claim the records were missing and the originals were in the very small seventy two dollars square foot pounds ball where the records were kept in neat chronological order and easily accessible so they had to have known that their claim was false and the claim that the records were burned with an outright lie no re is that's certainly circumstantial evidence that they knew what they said were false and the reason is that in this particular case the record shows fourteen and she claimed she said she picked them all up and she had them in her possession and she was cast as an accountant and as an auditor to evidence that shows that she knew that what she said was false one was that she we filed a public records  complaint to try to get the records from miss batchelor she gave gave us most of the records but she did not give us the records that showed that  the checks that she claimed showed discrepancies she did not give us her work papers and she successfully fought that in court so she did not allow us access to the records that records that they were and miss easter and miss loomis claims that my client stole money they all claimed that miss batchelor claimed that there were three hundred thousand dollars worth of discrepancies in the record which and there were none there were no discrepancies and she was tasked with analyzing those records so all three of the defense individual defendants in this case we are claiming defamed my client so you know it's not so easy to claim that's your answer yes and that's that's what the new york times standard is that i that a person no knows the statement was false or acting in reckless disregard for the truth and in this particular case there is ample evidence that all three individual defendants knew that what they said was false because they had easy access and and because actually profession the underlying document and going back to your original question what you're asking is whether possession is enough in this particular case it is because the records were in a very small area they were seventy two dollars square but vall they were they were in order they were easily accessible they were in notebook in chronological order anyone could have walked into that fault and within a few minutes determined whether the records were missing and therefore we think in this particular case that is certainly sufficient evidence  issues to that st of all we believe that but groups should be either the people who were sent challenge winners and those people missed  tuition from another time what the way onto a shining works in vermont is that if a town does not have a school the town itself pays the case that they cite the fact that your expert admitted that there was a one hundred and seventy thousand dollars spend it sure which there was no board authorization that the board authorization was missing and that mr dr balmy conceded that paid because the chair with a board of civil authority called the superintendent and told them that miss the board was a resident of curbing which was false and the and the chair of the board of civil authority voted along with the other members of the board in sort of authority to remove miss the board from the check with based on her own false statement support my name is mary kay kelly and i represent the talent of victory i'd like to address miss no more ski sweeping claim that her competitors for her class one claim are every boat around the town checklist as a briefing in this matter makes clear the b c a treated everyone the same everyone who did not respond to a challenge letter affirming their residency was removed from the checklist nor can miss nebraska identify a similar situation person with regard to the town clerk's decision in accordance with statute tree st a request to be turned to the voted tracklist to the beasts the board civil authority the b c i had j their their response to a challenge line or subsequently after miss nebraska applied for being put on the to argument there is no support in the law or fact mr morsi urged in implying that the town performed an investigation into the residency of each person applying to be on the voter checklist and treated them differently that's undisputed facts are own testimony regarding residency made clear as a spirit court found that there was reason to doubt her residency in the ship in fact an analysis may have admitted to more than one conclusion moreover the a didn't remove her from the voter checklist because members raised issues about her residency rather they sent her a challenge read a letter based on notes residency she was removed from the voter checklist because she failed that was not going to be sufficient evidence to spend it here on the record doesn't come anywhere close to the kind of evidence that was there and here today an oral argument the initial understanding of what the amount at issue might be at the trunk she made those statements what was the status of that it was still ongoing or i believe so i'm going  yes hi good afternoon and please the court this is gary franklin from from a piper i represent batchelder pendants i think the current posture of the case is at least somewhat informed by the claims that have been dropped  batchelder was acting independently in her professional capacity as an auditor and shouldn't be lumped in with any of the other defendants or the town there's nothing in the record that indicates a bad child or had reason to believe that the statements that she made in her professional capacity as contained in her audit or in fact untrue at the time that she made them it's important to remember that the audit reports were about whether proper controls were place expert picked up by judge bianca concedes that time money was being spent without proper beauport authorizations which is an essential component of the audit and lee quotes from playing this expert are extensively outcome of the audit reports particularly given that no board authorizations were ever produced to support the expenditures in question which is the lack of control the bachelor points to it's also noteworthy as the district court pointed out that the inspector for the mot state police concluded that while they found no evidence of criminal behavior they did agree that there were facts that clearly supported questionable accounting practices and that's the turning  six given these findings by plaintiffs on expert and by the brim on tape police it's hard to imagine how batchelder can be found guilty of actual malice when in fact they're poor parts of the record that support her findings most  shoulders findings in fact they're not even disputed they're just not even raised given the fact that the record supports petrobras findings plaintiffs cannot carry her burden of creating a tribal issue fact with respect to actual malice believe that the district court's decision should be a current thank you also on false hood based on the chair of the board of civil authority mr peters now miss loomis and missing easter or also members of that board and they were part of the decision to send the challenge letter both missed easter and missed loomis stated that my client had moved out of her house in two thousand and ten and missed easter wrote a letter to the editor saying that that was that's a lie that was not true and again miss peters i had called the superintendent and it and also said that my client had moved out of her home which is also false clearly you're not  a case talks about equal protection class of one you have to show is that someone was intentionally treated differently and there was no rational basis for the treatment and w is my client was treated differently based on lies by the people who made the decision and so we we say that an intentional treatment differential treatment and there was no rational basis for sending that challenge letter and just if very briefly your honor in regard to the financial records mr franklin stated that there were no board authorization bridges all kinds of larger d questions portentous questions of law but i'm curious given the fact that this is a power approximately sixty  texas well next door in this case missy steer can can see i believe i believe can see her house it's not it's not like you know i can have a mile away or anything and then and i and i to correct myself miss miss loomis lives up above miss easter and so hasta drive