[00:00:01] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:00:03] Speaker 02:
Joseph Tubbs from Williams Castor on behalf of the appellants.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
This is our third time on appeal in this case, this time from the district court's order granting a motion for summary judgment.

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
However, serious and genuine issues of material fact require reversal and remand to a different district court judge for a jury trial.

[00:00:25] Speaker 02:
First, calling appellants murderers is defamatory, per se, as a matter of law.

[00:00:31] Speaker 04:
That is because the imputation— What happens if in ordinary terms, rather than legal sort of definition of the crime, they were killers?

[00:00:42] Speaker 02:
Well, that goes to the issue of falsity, right?

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
Is this a false or a true claim?

[00:00:47] Speaker 02:
And so after the district court first makes the determination, is this statement capable of being defamatory?

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
Then it goes to a jury to decide whether or not, in fact, that was defamatory.

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
So the jury decides, was this true or false?

[00:01:02] Speaker 04:
Do you dispute that they're killers?

[00:01:07] Speaker 02:
I do not dispute that they killed someone.

[00:01:12] Speaker 02:
So continue on, since the district court makes the first determination.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
Why do you say it's per se defamatory?

[00:01:20] Speaker 02:
Because it imputes to the appellants.

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
It's an opinion, isn't it?

[00:01:25] Speaker 02:
No, it is not an opinion.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
It may be an opinion.

[00:01:27] Speaker 01:
Of course it's an opinion.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
I mean, a killing is not an opinion, but a murder, as opposed to manslaughter, is an opinion.

[00:01:35] Speaker 02:
It is an opinion made by a jury.

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
And it is a jury convicts someone based on whether or not they are murder.

[00:01:41] Speaker 02:
A killing is different from a murder.

[00:01:43] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
So I'm stuck with the idea that calling somebody a murderer is imputing a deliberate intention to that person, which is an opinion that the person forms who's stating the question.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
If it's an opinion, then it's not a statement of fact, and it's not defamatory per se.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
Mistaken on that?

[00:02:04] Speaker 02:
I will direct the court to Vern Sims Ford versus Hagel, 713 Pacific Second, 736.

[00:02:13] Speaker 02:
The court held that statements that the respondents were thieves as accusations of criminal activity are not constitutionally protected.

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
opinions.

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
In reaching that decision, the court quoted another case out of New York, the Court of Appeals for New York, and they said, accusations of criminal activity, even in the form of opinion, are not, I just said that, are not constitutionally protected.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
No First Amendment protection enfolds false charges of criminal behavior.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
So whether or not Sawant believed that she was

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
Stating this as an opinion or fact it is irrelevant to the analysis here and should be put to the jury Just so we're clear about this so if I say I think that guy's a crook in your view that would be opinion and not actionable Well when you get to certain the Dunlap factors I think is what you're talking about is in you are are there terms of

[00:03:14] Speaker 02:
Of a parent see that would indicate to the audience that I think that that's my opinion sure your statement that sounds like there's terms of a parent see there.

[00:03:22] Speaker 02:
Maybe that's indicating more of an opinion than a fact, however, here there were no terms of a parent see there wasn't anything that said.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
I believe these are murderers.

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
They are accused murderers.

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
They may be potential murderers.

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
No, she said as a statement of fact, they are murderers.

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
And she knew.

[00:03:38] Speaker 03:
So if people say that President Biden is a murderer because of what's going on in the Middle East, then he could sue all these people for defamation?

[00:03:47] Speaker 02:
You could sue them.

[00:03:48] Speaker 02:
He may not be successful.

[00:03:49] Speaker 03:
Well, OK, but OK, you're saying there's a viable you're saying there's a viable cause of action under Washington law for President Biden.

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
If people say President Biden, you're a murderer.

[00:03:59] Speaker 03:
I think it depends on who the speaker is, to whom it is spoken to and say the same thing.

[00:04:03] Speaker 03:
Same rally, same, you know, the same plaintiff in this case says, hey, you know, same defendant in this case says, hey, President Biden, you're a murderer.

[00:04:11] Speaker 03:
Steps up to a mic at a rally and just boom.

[00:04:14] Speaker 03:
Kind of like what happened here.

[00:04:15] Speaker 03:
Maybe not the most thought out statement.

[00:04:17] Speaker 03:
But just as it Yes, it's actionable.

[00:04:21] Speaker 03:
It's actionable.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
Okay, even though President Biden's a public figure You have to prove actual malice right in that statement So if if if if there's a public figure involved in the defamation claim it goes a little bit further for purposes of this case public figures there So you've got to show malice.

[00:04:37] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:04:38] Speaker 04:
So where's the malice?

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
So the malice comes in

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
It can be inferred from the respondent's hostility and failure to properly investigate.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
And it also may come from a separate independent evidence of intent to avoid the truth.

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
So if you look at Duck Tan and Hart Hanks in both of those cases, the defendants published stories without consulting with anyone else about information that may have shown what they were stating.

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
may have had some significance on their investigations.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
In Duck Tan specifically, the court found that the defendant's systematic and continuous failure to interview the plaintiffs and reliance on vague sources instead constituted malice.

[00:05:26] Speaker 04:
Help me out as to why here there's malice.

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
So in her deposition,

[00:05:31] Speaker 02:
Sawant confirms that she didn't read any newspaper articles.

[00:05:35] Speaker 02:
She never reviewed officer statements.

[00:05:37] Speaker 02:
She didn't contact anyone from the force review board or the force investigation team, speak with anyone at SPD, not even the captain.

[00:05:45] Speaker 02:
She intentionally didn't contact those sources.

[00:05:47] Speaker 02:
And that is apparent in her deposition because of her bias and her hostility towards her understanding of those bodies as being not impartial.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
And she decided not to, again, when stating this for the second time in 2017, she knew the outcome of the inquest and the independent investigations, two of them.

[00:06:14] Speaker 02:
And yet she didn't temper any of her statements with any terms or try to negate her statements, which those certainly would have done.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
And again, as a council woman, she has many more sources available to her than any, you know, regular lay person, her position as a government official, essentially, you know, the boss of the police department.

[00:06:47] Speaker 02:
gives her the opportunity to do these investigations and by admitting to willingly not consulting another any other sources as she does in her deposition she admits that she fails to investigate and that she admits that she did so in complete avoidance of the truth because she says that it wouldn't help working people and yet these investigations time and time again two of them one done by an additional done by the

[00:07:11] Speaker 02:
coroner's inquest, all found no evidence of wrongdoing.

[00:07:14] Speaker 04:
So let me return to Judge Baia's question.

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
And that is, she may well believe that they are murderers.

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
Why is that not her opinion?

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
And therefore, when she says they're murderers, it's an expression of opinion.

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
Well, again, that opinion is not constitutionally protected.

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
Why not?

[00:07:37] Speaker 02:
because it imputes criminal unlawful activity.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
It's an accusation of criminal activity that is not protected by the First Amendment.

[00:07:46] Speaker 04:
What if we were to say she's not speaking in terms of law, but she's speaking in terms of ordinary parlance.

[00:07:52] Speaker 04:
So for example, I'll use Judge Owens' example.

[00:07:56] Speaker 04:
She were to say about somebody, that guy's a crook.

[00:07:59] Speaker 04:
And what we know is, well, he is accused of taking bribes and so on, but he's never been actually adjudicated of having done something that's criminal.

[00:08:07] Speaker 04:
But in my view, he's a crook.

[00:08:09] Speaker 04:
And I'm a public official.

[00:08:12] Speaker 04:
I'm engaged in some sort of a,

[00:08:15] Speaker 04:
ways I'll call it campaign business.

[00:08:18] Speaker 04:
I'm speaking to a crowd trying to convince somebody to elect me, or these guys are all crooks.

[00:08:25] Speaker 04:
I mean, there's some imprecision there if we're talking the definitions in a court of law.

[00:08:32] Speaker 04:
But why is this imprecision when we're not in a court of law, but rather in front of a crowd in a political setting?

[00:08:41] Speaker 04:
Why is that actionable?

[00:08:43] Speaker 02:
When it's undisputed that they that they're killers Because the word that was used was not they are killers They are murderers and she is an elected official.

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
She is not just a lay person So she is standing before everyone and granted she did this twice Maybe she would have had the opportunity a year later to say maybe I should revise my statement and

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
And instead of calling them murderers, which I know now to not be true because they were never found to be wrongdoing.

[00:09:14] Speaker 04:
And to this day, they're- Wait a minute.

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
That doesn't mean it's not true.

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
What it means is they weren't prosecuted.

[00:09:20] Speaker 03:
But in the absence of proof that they were murderers, that must be- People say things about OJ all the time and, you know, he wasn't convicted either, but- Correct.

[00:09:30] Speaker 03:
People call him a murderer, so his estate could sue people for calling OJ a murderer?

[00:09:35] Speaker 03:
Right, because it's provably false.

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
He was never convicted.

[00:09:39] Speaker 03:
Beyond a reasonable doubt whether someone did something or two different standards, but go ahead.

[00:09:45] Speaker 02:
So I'm not sure I addressed your question fully here.

[00:09:51] Speaker 02:
This was a rally, Steps, from City Hall.

[00:09:55] Speaker 04:
City Councilwoman was- We're talking about two rallies, and both rallies she called the murderers.

[00:10:00] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:10:00] Speaker 02:
Steps from City Hall.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
She was already elected official.

[00:10:03] Speaker 02:
She was not on the campaign trail.

[00:10:05] Speaker 04:
This time- They're never not on the campaign trail.

[00:10:11] Speaker 02:
I would agree with that statement.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
And I will be reserving three minutes.

[00:10:17] Speaker 02:
I didn't say that at the beginning.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
It is reasonable that the audience could have thought that she was stepping from city hall, making an official statement based on the city, based on having four days, even at the first time, even from the first incident to the first rally to say, this is what our city's position is.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
This is what we're going to do to take action.

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
Whether or not, or excuse me, how the audience understood

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
her statements to be opinion or fact is a genuine issue of material fact that should be left to the jury.

[00:11:00] Speaker 02:
I will reserve the rest of my time.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
Very well.

[00:11:18] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, I'm Darren Dalmet on behalf of Shama Sawant.

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
In light of state and federal constitutional protections, Washington defamation law

[00:11:28] Speaker 00:
robustly protect speech criticizing public employees' performance of their duties, including police officers' use of force.

[00:11:37] Speaker 00:
In light of the questions that you asked my friend on the other side, I'm going to streamline my opening presentation and just urge the court, if it hasn't already, to actually look at the videos of the two speeches that are at issue here.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
These are available at the record on pages 734.

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
and 737.

[00:11:57] Speaker 00:
Their links, one is in Judge Peckman's earlier opinion and another is from Dan Brown's declaration.

[00:12:05] Speaker 00:
Their links to a stranger article from the stranger of the publication here in Seattle and to a ABC Channel 4 article.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
The stranger article will show the first speech.

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
It's got about

[00:12:21] Speaker 00:
two minutes.

[00:12:21] Speaker 00:
And what you will see when you watch that is that Shama Sawant, who did not plan that first rally, she was sitting in City Hall, heard the cries, the grieving cries, the protesting cries, the outcries of outrage from people who had seen yet one more black man shot and killed at the hands of the police.

[00:12:45] Speaker 00:
She left her office from City Hall and what the video shows is she is standing in the middle of the street surrounded by people carrying picket signs saying, justice for Chay Taylor.

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
One of them has his hand up in a fist.

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
There's someone shaking a kind of peace stick.

[00:13:06] Speaker 00:
This is an environment where she was not standing behind an official podium.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
like I am now trying to compare cold, dry evidence to legal standards.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
She opened her speech with expressions of solidarity.

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
She expressed her solidarity for the Black Lives Matter movement.

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
And she called for accountability.

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
When she uttered the word accountability the first time, the crowd erupted into applause.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
This is not a dry press briefing where

[00:13:42] Speaker 00:
objective facts were expected.

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
The audience was mourning and grieving and expressing outrage.

[00:13:48] Speaker 00:
That is what they expected from her, and that is what she delivered.

[00:13:53] Speaker 00:
If you fast forward a year, the killing of Charlena Lyles, this, as your honors may remember, was a black woman who was pregnant at the time.

[00:14:05] Speaker 00:
who called the police for help because she believed that her house was being burglared.

[00:14:10] Speaker 00:
The police came, and they were talking about whether to use a taser or a gun on her.

[00:14:19] Speaker 00:
And in the couple minutes that they had that discussion, they did not call the crisis center.

[00:14:26] Speaker 00:
They shot her and her unborn baby dead.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
She died.

[00:14:30] Speaker 00:
The video is an hour-long video.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
It shows a series of speakers, family members, expressing words of grief, crying.

[00:14:42] Speaker 00:
It shows the family's lawyer, James Bible, who represented both the Taylor family and the Lyles family, explaining how in those couple minutes that the police officers and the Lyles killing

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
had been conferring with one another whether to use a taser or get a gun, that they could have used that time to call a crisis center.

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
They failed to do so.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
And so he began a chant, started Soto Voce, murder is murder is murder is murder.

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
The crowd was completely transfixed on him.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
He repeated this five or six times with escalating vigor, and the crowd is chanting with him.

[00:15:27] Speaker 00:
It goes on to show Andre Taylor, the surviving brother of Che Taylor, who recounted the Seattle Times story that we submitted

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
to you that did that study of the 230 police involved killings over the prior decade where there was only one prosecution because of the then existing defense law, that's RCW 9A.16.0403.

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
which set forth the actual malice standard.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
There was only one prosecution and no convictions in the last decade prior to these events and Andre Taylor told the crowd about that and he went through the same litany, the same prayerful litany that you hear at so many Black Lives Matter protests.

[00:16:20] Speaker 03:
cited the name of Freddie Gray said murder he cited the name of Trayvon Martin said murder he went I'm sorry let me just jump in here because I I appreciate what you're saying but also from the officer's perspective right to play you know devil's advocate here in a sense they have a public official

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
at a rally, saying some pretty bad things about them.

[00:16:47] Speaker 03:
Now, the First Amendment's a very important doctrine, and I think that may resolve this case.

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
But what are the officers supposed to do in this situation in terms of you have a public official who's saying things about them that, in their mind, are

[00:16:59] Speaker 03:
you know, dangerous people could come potentially take steps and go after the officers.

[00:17:05] Speaker 03:
Is there any recourse under Washington law?

[00:17:07] Speaker 03:
Like what if she, what if every day she came to work and she said the same thing over and over again?

[00:17:12] Speaker 03:
Is there anything the officers can do to stop her from doing that?

[00:17:15] Speaker 00:
Absolutely.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
They could bring this defamation suit and they would have a burden to show the three things that they were unable to show below.

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
They would first have to show an objective falsifiable factual assertion.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
They failed to do that.

[00:17:29] Speaker 00:
That looks at the context, the three Dunlap factors, which focus on context here, a political rally, a reasonable audience expectations, and the implication of undisclosed facts.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
They failed to adduce any evidence on any of those three burdens, assuming they got passed

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
that hurdle and went to the falsifiable fact, they would have to actually show that her assertion was false.

[00:17:54] Speaker 00:
They came forward with no evidence.

[00:17:56] Speaker 00:
They submitted a declaration each.

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
They don't even give a bold denial in that declaration that they came with no intent to kill.

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
The record as it stands here in front of this court is that there is no evidence

[00:18:10] Speaker 00:
And they bear the burden.

[00:18:11] Speaker 00:
There's no evidence that what she said, even if it were taken as a factual assertion, is false.

[00:18:18] Speaker 00:
And then of course there's no showing of actual malice.

[00:18:21] Speaker 00:
To show actual malice, they have to show that Shama Sawant entertained a serious doubt.

[00:18:27] Speaker 00:
that she subjectively entertained a serious doubt as to the truth of her statements.

[00:18:33] Speaker 00:
There's no evidence of that.

[00:18:35] Speaker 00:
Isn't the acquittal some evidence that it was false?

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor, and there was no acquittal.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
First of all, there was no charge.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
There was no prosecution.

[00:18:46] Speaker 00:
the protesters, including Shama Sawant, were complaining about was how broken the criminal justice system is.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
Judge Owens asked an excellent question about O.J.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
Simpson.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
He was prosecuted and acquitted.

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
He was later held liable by a jury for wrongful death.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
These facts are right on point.

[00:19:09] Speaker 00:
The Taylor family was able to get a $1.5 million settlement in a civil wrongful death suit after Judge Zilli decided, looking at all the evidence, that the officers had failed to present enough evidence to warrant summary judgment in their favor.

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
And following that denial of summary judgment, the city negotiated a settlement in favor of the family.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
So again, I'll follow along with, I guess, Judge Owen's idea of devil's advocate.

[00:19:47] Speaker 04:
So they settle, but maybe they settle because it was manslaughter.

[00:19:52] Speaker 04:
I mean, they don't settle.

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
I mean, a wrongful killing doesn't necessarily make it a murder in the legal sense of what constitutes murder and sort of first degree and so on.

[00:20:01] Speaker 04:
So how do you respond to that?

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
Absolutely, and the communicative content of the accusation of murder has to be understood in context.

[00:20:11] Speaker 00:
and Greenbelt decided that blackmail is not always an accusation of crime.

[00:20:15] Speaker 00:
Sometimes it's an accusation of hard negotiating tactics.

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
The Supreme Court in letter carriers in Austin decided that traitor is not always an accusation of the crime of disloyalty to the United States.

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
Sometimes it's just a scab, someone who crosses a picket line and is not in solidarity with the workers who make the statement.

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
The context was that these two officers killed a man at near point-blank range when there was no evidence that they saw a gun in his hand at the time, and Shama Sawant, like all the protesters who were out at those two rallies, thought that was wrongful.

[00:20:57] Speaker 00:
They didn't know what the... Well, I can't speak to what exactly they knew, but in the second rally,

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
Andre Taylor spoke specifically about the malice law and Shama Sawant specifically said,

[00:21:14] Speaker 00:
and this is the year later after he was killed, that there was no justice under the current system for Che Taylor.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
So she disclosed, in essence, the fact that there had not been a conviction, there had not been a prosecution.

[00:21:29] Speaker 00:
She was condemning the system as inadequate to protect the lives of black and brown people who were, unfortunately, yet again, gunned down at the hands of the police.

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
Unless your honors have further questions, I'll submit on the briefs.

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Council.

[00:21:50] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:21:58] Speaker 02:
Just to highlight why there are genuine issues of material fact requiring reversal and remand.

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
My friend opposing counsel and I both have different interpretations of the sentence we cannot rely on in the existing processes to determine why Charlena was killed because that process has failed to Chay Taylor.

[00:22:18] Speaker 02:
Could you speak a little bit more?

[00:22:20] Speaker 02:
You mumbled, I couldn't hear you.

[00:22:21] Speaker 02:
I'm so sorry, yes.

[00:22:24] Speaker 02:
I will repeat that this highlights why there is a genuine issue of material effect here because both my friend and I have different interpretations of one sentence.

[00:22:33] Speaker 02:
We cannot rely on existing processes to determine why Charlena was killed because that process has failed Chey Taylor.

[00:22:41] Speaker 02:
That statement implies that Sawant had superior knowledge of undisclosed facts.

[00:22:47] Speaker 02:
And she did actually have superior knowledge at that time that sentence was spoken.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
Again, even knowing the results of the inquest and the investigation being that there was no wrongdoing, there were no convictions, she failed to qualify any of her statements.

[00:23:02] Speaker 04:
She never said... The fact that there was no charge doesn't necessarily mean that there was no wrongdoing by the officers.

[00:23:09] Speaker 04:
We all know that.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
But she didn't say, I think that these are wrong.

[00:23:16] Speaker 02:
I think these are wrongful murders, wrongful killings.

[00:23:19] Speaker 02:
She said they're murderers.

[00:23:22] Speaker 02:
That's different.

[00:23:23] Speaker 02:
And what are the appellants supposed to prove?

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
Should we prove a negative?

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
Do we have to show our innocence before the court in order to say, yes, that's a false statement?

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
Because that turns criminal law on its head.

[00:23:38] Speaker 02:
That cannot be what we are required to show when there is an absence of a conviction, rather that we must show that we are innocent.

[00:23:45] Speaker 02:
And how the

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
audience interprets her speaking is a matter that should be put to the audience, to the jury.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
What is the tribal issue of fact as to her superior and undisclosed knowledge?

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
Repeat your question, please.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
In order for an opinion to be defamatory, as I understand Washington law, there has to be some proof that the speaker had some undisclosed knowledge at the time that he or she said the statement.

[00:24:18] Speaker 01:
What is the factual issue as to her undisclosed knowledge?

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
The factual issue is that she knew of the coroner's inquest, that she knew of the independent investigations, and yet at the second rally in 2017, she did not say, you know,

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
Based on these investigations, these are accused murderers, or I am accusing them of murder.

[00:24:46] Speaker 02:
She just flat out called them murderers.

[00:24:48] Speaker 02:
There was no tempering or offering that information to try to negate her.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
Was that independent investigation confidential to her?

[00:24:57] Speaker 02:
No, I don't believe.

[00:24:59] Speaker 02:
Well, I'm not sure.

[00:25:00] Speaker 01:
Why wasn't it known by the people she was talking to?

[00:25:02] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
It wasn't undisclosed then.

[00:25:07] Speaker 01:
I mean, undisclosed means that she knows something that nobody else knows.

[00:25:12] Speaker 01:
What is the triable issue of fact that she had knowledge of undisclosed evidence?

[00:25:18] Speaker 02:
The results of that.

[00:25:20] Speaker 01:
The result of what?

[00:25:21] Speaker 01:
She should have made that known during the... She should have made known that there was an independent investigation which cleared these people, which was known to everybody in the community.

[00:25:37] Speaker 01:
I mean, unless it was confidential information, which only she had.

[00:25:42] Speaker 01:
Okay, got you.

[00:25:44] Speaker 03:
20 seconds.

[00:25:45] Speaker 03:
Do you want to say anything about coughs?

[00:25:47] Speaker 03:
No, we're resting on very well.

[00:25:49] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:25:50] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:25:50] Speaker 03:
Thank you both for your briefing your argument in this case this matter submitted