relay obviously in the memo we're not accepting that release our position in the underlying case at the trial level was not that was true with that's the substance was mr schwarz had made a statement in public with other people present and that it implied mr freear was carrying a gun or did carry a gun and should be searched i mean our position is that whatever the statement was it implied some threat that required the action of courthouse security to avoid county courthouse with a gun it would have been illegal and that the defendant schwarz was asking the deputy to check him and find that he presented some risk of doing this or that he has done this in the past that's really the basis for that's really i think what this boils down to wasn't wasn't the defendant this case the and that one his lawyers and his office in fact attorneys undergoing some difficulties or having a handicap would have to go through the handicap accessible and france and at least at the time were subject to a greater security measure is this such as a search on their person or you know as far as the backs of their hearing and his implication was that you know if i'm having to go through this that at least it appears that he was upset because he had to be subjected to that whereas mr puryear another attorneys were not well isn't that allowed to pass through the security system you didn't have to have your bags track you didn't happen check you don't have searched or anything like that there was a metal metal detector but if you set it off routinely attorneys were allowed to just  obviously became more critical i believe when people began to associate this change in policy with behavior on the part of mr per year that's why defamation action arose that's why we're here today manner excuse me would undermine the central logic of having an absolute privilege to begin with and just returning to the first point this privilege has been his fruit in a narrow way because of his absolute clients relating to another client pertaining to ongoing litigation the scot involves statements made during a meeting between parties in the context of the litigation relating to a third party yes but his involvement with the other party here we have third part similar to media so much opposing counsel spouse unrelated to the matter we have a statement that in no way is related to the matter or heard into the matter one carrying a gun into courthouse does not relate to the subject matter of the order of protection that parties were litigating at that time not that missile not necessarily that day but at that time and so taking the requirement for permanency which circumstances statements to security personnel would clearly fall in to this exception if they related to the circumstances of the on the going litigation in other words were he to have said or followed up made make sure that mr per year was searched or said you know my client believes that mr per year is a threat to his safety or mentioned anything or relating to the ongoing litigation i believe that the defense would be on stronger ground but there's nothing in the state nothing in the words of the statement nothing in the context of the statement again in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party that would indicate that there's any connection here there is the implication that mr schwartz and mr per year were litigating the matter at the time it may have been later later that day it may have been a couple days later but that's the case with most attorneys in the area rocket ordinarily you have a case and then you against another attorney and this brings me to my third point the policy considerations are really what underpinned the absolute perfect the notion that although this would have ordinarily be the basis of liability based on society and in this day and age of increasing seemingly increasing instability among attorneys and the perception that was just a series of a game of  the trial judge here did mention his own personal observations of the two going on and how that played into his outcome or his analysis that led him to believe that there was this animosity that frankly wasn't present in the record for the extent that the author will include it was and so to the extent that played into the ultimate determination here i believe it was improper for the court consider those matter is just based on the judge's recollection  of contract that there were i believe the fall of if you include those six act or some other basis at the time but only two of them were personal actions and the breach of contract action actually been resolved by t we're saying i'm an advocate for cd doing here here i have a concern about the security based on my past dealings with this individual and i bring my concern up to a  three that statement was made on december twenty second two thousand a lot he filed this lawsuit on december third two thousand allowed he needs after this or nine days carries a gun that is not accusing mr process with somebody he knows has animosity or as demonstrated over the past year and a half was repeated lawsuits against him and by mr premier himself boy if you're the statement that he isn't implying any illegal activity then what would they be checking for because he's makes  can't say checking for about a stop illegal and not say that he's doing something illegal i think that they don't they don't interface while you can legally carry with a permit in the state of illinois you can't legally bring absolute privilege to him as an attorney in this situation the flip side of this is you're going to show his speech on this issue number one when it's true mr  there's no facts to support that allegation at all and and that's why you have a duty specifically does not determine when you're filing a verified plate such as you do a reasonable investigation into what actually was sad before you start bringing defamation per se why and the fact of the matter is is that what mr schwarz sa think i understand what i'm saying and in the support of the same actions motion and support of the sanctions motion i've made the argument that the statement that actually was may was not i mis specifically worded for reasons it's you know in nature and as a result of that it's strictly a pot what are the ask you what what what's worse your factual basis or the allegation that  in the meet the immediate aftermath of this statement made by mr schwartz suggesting that all we heard that this was not about you in rock island and out of checking everyone and that again well was now and alternately that the wipers number one of this completely different and i would agree i don't know that i would necessarily agree that it meets the innocent instruction standard because it is illegal to carry a gun in  and again that would imply the commission of a crime so again i i believe there's a factual basis for it i just calmly read though there was a factual basis for it didn't