[00:00:00] Speaker 01: Case number 24-7068 et al. [00:00:04] Speaker 01: Louise Higney Castillo-Beggars, Appellant, versus National Academy of Sciences, and Marcia McNutt. [00:00:10] Speaker 01: Mr. Jones for the Appellant, Ms. [00:00:12] Speaker 01: Kroxenbecker for the Appellees. [00:00:17] Speaker 04: Good morning, Mr. Jones. [00:00:19] Speaker 00: Good morning, Judge Pan. [00:00:21] Speaker 00: Judge Ginsburg, good morning. [00:00:22] Speaker 00: May it please the court? [00:00:23] Speaker 00: I'm here on behalf of Dr. Luis Jaime Castillo-Butters in this appeal. [00:00:31] Speaker 00: I'd like to reserve a few minutes for rebuttal from my time. [00:00:37] Speaker 00: This is, we believe, a very straightforward case for this court to review. [00:00:44] Speaker 00: And I think the very first [00:00:46] Speaker 00: And most important aspect is that this is, we're here after a dismissal on rule 12B6 for failure to state a claim. [00:00:57] Speaker 00: And of course, in this circuit and as the Supreme Court has stated in Twombly and Iqbal, basically all facts must be taken as true. [00:01:08] Speaker 00: all reasonable inferences granted to the plaintiff. [00:01:12] Speaker 00: And this circuit has clarified even further that there must be no set of facts consistent with the allegations that could exist that would allow the plaintiff to state a claim. [00:01:24] Speaker 04: And so we think that- Can I ask you a question? [00:01:26] Speaker 04: Is it your position that the defamatory statement is that your client violated section four of the code of conduct or that he engaged in sexual harassment or both? [00:01:38] Speaker 00: Well, it's both, Your Honor. [00:01:40] Speaker 00: And we had three claims. [00:01:42] Speaker 00: There was defamation, false light, and defamation by implication. [00:01:47] Speaker 04: I understand. [00:01:47] Speaker 04: I'm just trying to understand what the defamation [00:01:49] Speaker 00: So the defamation is the violation of the code of conduct section four. [00:01:55] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:01:55] Speaker 04: So stating that he violated the code of conduct to you is defamatory. [00:02:00] Speaker 00: such that it resulted in his expulsion from the National Academy of Sciences. [00:02:04] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:02:04] Speaker 04: So Section 4 has a whole long list of different things. [00:02:09] Speaker 04: Some of it is very serious, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, bullying. [00:02:14] Speaker 04: And then some of them is not, like, not being collegial. [00:02:17] Speaker 04: And so I guess the question is whether that can be considered defamatory in the sense that it's odious if it has a whole long list of things, some of which isn't odious. [00:02:30] Speaker 00: Well, your honor, I would offer that, especially given the prestige of an appointment to the National Academy of Sciences and being an international member, which in and of itself was an additional prestigious appointment to commit. [00:02:46] Speaker 04: Is that part of the analysis about whether or not that statement is odious? [00:02:51] Speaker 04: The fact that it was in a prestigious appointment, does that actually matter in terms of us trying to decide if saying somebody violated code of conduct number four is defamatory? [00:03:05] Speaker 00: Well, I think it goes to the issue of defamatory. [00:03:08] Speaker 00: For instance, if one was ejected from the local rotary club, [00:03:12] Speaker 00: for not being collegial versus being ejected from the National Academy of Sciences. [00:03:18] Speaker 04: Well, it would be very important to the person who was ejected from the Rotary Club, maybe not to your client, but I don't see what the difference is. [00:03:25] Speaker 00: Well, it goes to reputation, honor, and the damage to reputation. [00:03:28] Speaker 00: And this is damage to reputation at such a higher level, such a greater level of magnitude that the statement that Dr. Castillo was ejected for violating the code of conduct [00:03:42] Speaker 00: even if there was no description of the code of conduct, I think would be enough to state a claim for defamation because they're saying you can't belong to this organization anymore because of something you did. [00:03:54] Speaker 00: And our argument is that that is provably false. [00:03:57] Speaker 04: I think if we're creating law or interpreting law that defines defamation, I don't see how it's workable to include in the definition of defamation [00:04:08] Speaker 04: the level of prestige that this person, this plaintiff has, or the level of prestige of the things that are at stake, in my view, I don't think, should influence the definition of what is defamatory in the sense that it's odious. [00:04:24] Speaker 04: I'm not sure how that would work in writing an opinion that defines defamation. [00:04:29] Speaker 00: Well, certainly, honor, it would go to potentially it goes to to remedy into damages. [00:04:34] Speaker 04: But I think that I'm trying to focus in on whether as a matter of law saying you violated section four, which includes not being collegial, that level, does that rise to odious and ridiculous that the type of standard that can as a matter of law be defamatory? [00:04:50] Speaker 00: It does, Your Honor, because Section 4 includes all those other conditions as well. [00:04:56] Speaker 00: There's no clarification that said Dr. Castillo was ejected for violating Section 4 of the Code of Conduct because he wasn't collegial. [00:05:06] Speaker 00: And again, in the totality of the circumstances, we know the same day that that clarification statement was issued, [00:05:17] Speaker 00: the defendants Ms. [00:05:20] Speaker 00: McNutt's statements in Science Insider appear, which goes toward, which also contributes to our defamation by implication claim that couples the objections with [00:05:33] Speaker 00: other sexual harassment cases. [00:05:36] Speaker 00: And so, I think that it's not enough to simply say, well, there are some mild charges in here because the person who hears it. [00:05:47] Speaker 04: The legal standard is it must make the plaintiff appear odious, infamous, or ridiculous. [00:05:52] Speaker 04: It must. [00:05:53] Speaker 04: And saying you violated section four, does that [00:05:58] Speaker 04: necessarily make you appear odious, infamous, or ridiculous when you could have just been not collegial. [00:06:03] Speaker 00: Well, I think it's also a reasonable inference, Your Honor, that what the NAS is talking about is the serious elements of section four, which includes sexual harassment. [00:06:19] Speaker 00: I believe that's a very reasonable inference. [00:06:22] Speaker 04: It's a reasonable inference, but it must make the plaintiff appear odious. [00:06:27] Speaker 04: being particular, not being ejected, the defamatory statement, which is you've been removed because of section four. [00:06:37] Speaker 04: I'm not sure it meets that standard. [00:06:39] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, I believe that because section four includes sexual harassment and some other, and bullying some other- It could, but it's not must. [00:06:48] Speaker 04: That's my question. [00:06:49] Speaker 00: Well, again, I believe that we're entitled to that reasonable inference. [00:06:54] Speaker 00: And I think that, again, I stand on the position that being ejected from [00:07:00] Speaker 00: being so non-collegial as to be ejected from the National Academy of Sciences, I think is odious and subject to ridicule. [00:07:09] Speaker 00: And so I think that the defamation spans all of those annotated conduct points in section four. [00:07:20] Speaker 04: So on the article, it seems to me, I'm wondering, it seems to me that the most serious charges or allegations against your client were made not by Ms. [00:07:31] Speaker 04: McNutt, but by the rest of the article, which was somebody else speaking. [00:07:36] Speaker 04: And it's just not clear to me that what Ms. [00:07:42] Speaker 04: McNutt said meets the standard of defamation by implication. [00:07:48] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor, and this case is not identical but similar to the Fells versus the SEIU case. [00:07:56] Speaker 00: When the article speaks about three other NAS members being ejected for sexual harassment, the quote from Ms. [00:08:06] Speaker 00: McNutt then says, the removals show that you must be held to a higher standard to be a role model, and I'm paraphrasing that section. [00:08:17] Speaker 04: So the legal standard is it's not enough that a statement can be reasonably read to impart the false innuendo, but it must also affirmatively suggest that the author intends or endorses that inference. [00:08:30] Speaker 04: That's from Phelps. [00:08:31] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:08:32] Speaker 00: And we think that this situation is, while not identical, it's directly on point. [00:08:38] Speaker 00: That this quote, it's a very reasonable inference that NAS and Ms. [00:08:45] Speaker 00: McNaught have cooperated in the production, in the writing of this article. [00:08:49] Speaker 00: And it's very clear from the positioning of that comment that she and NAS are endorsing [00:08:59] Speaker 00: the statement made by the journalists that these three individuals were ejected before committing sexual harassment. [00:09:10] Speaker 03: Did you allege anything about Ms. [00:09:12] Speaker 03: McNutt's knowledge of what the article would say? [00:09:18] Speaker 00: So we do allege that she participated in the construction or production of the article. [00:09:28] Speaker 00: We did also plead. [00:09:30] Speaker 03: What does that mean besides making her quotation available? [00:09:34] Speaker 00: that she participated with the reporter, that she participated with the reporter in structuring this, in this statement, in this article. [00:09:46] Speaker 00: In other words, that she knew that this was the gist, this was the point of the article. [00:09:53] Speaker 03: Where is that in the complaint? [00:09:55] Speaker 00: So that is in the second amended complaint. [00:10:12] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:10:16] Speaker 00: Thank you for this. [00:10:17] Speaker 00: This is joint Joint Appendix 78. [00:10:21] Speaker 00: It's page six. [00:10:25] Speaker 00: and this is the Joint Appendix page 78. [00:10:32] Speaker 00: Your honor, page six of the second amended complaint and [00:10:42] Speaker 00: Well, actually all the way through 43, discuss the participation in the drafting of the article. [00:10:50] Speaker 04: So paragraph 33 says McNutt encouraged and fueled the production of the article by providing the statements quoted in the article. [00:11:01] Speaker 04: So all it is is her statement in the article, basically. [00:11:08] Speaker 04: Well, and then making neither McNutt nor Nass in Paragraph 36 asked for a retraction correction or clarification. [00:11:16] Speaker 00: That's that's correct, Your Honor, and that's and that's something that that if there was a if there was a misunderstanding or a misconstrual, clearly that would have taken place. [00:11:30] Speaker 00: But but there was no retraction. [00:11:32] Speaker 00: There never has been a retraction. [00:11:36] Speaker 04: So it seems that [00:11:37] Speaker 04: McNutt's statements and the statements have been careful not to state or suggest that your client engaged in sexual harassment. [00:11:47] Speaker 04: They're really, they've never ever made that connection to sexual harassment. [00:11:53] Speaker 04: And it just seems that what she said. [00:11:59] Speaker 04: doesn't suggest that he engaged in sexual harassment. [00:12:02] Speaker 04: It's just the context that it was in this article. [00:12:05] Speaker 04: But can we hold her responsible for what the writer of the article said and the rest of the article? [00:12:11] Speaker 04: I don't think we can. [00:12:11] Speaker 00: Well, again, Your Honor, there was no attempt for a retraction or clarification [00:12:22] Speaker 00: at any time, I think that, again, a reasonable reader of that statement would see that as NAS signing up and being on board with the statement that these individuals were kicked out because they had committed sexual harassment. [00:12:43] Speaker 04: But isn't this the standard that her statement must affirmatively suggest that she intended or endorsed the inference? [00:12:52] Speaker 04: And I don't think her statement meets that standard. [00:12:56] Speaker 04: So I'll note that DC law requires an especially rigorous showing for defamation by implication claims. [00:13:04] Speaker 04: So how does this meet the standard? [00:13:07] Speaker 00: Well, I think the statement, the removals as part of Ms. [00:13:11] Speaker 00: Bixnut's statement [00:13:14] Speaker 00: is referring back to two paragraphs earlier in the statement where the author indicates that those three members were ejected specifically for sexual harassment. [00:13:29] Speaker 04: But her statement doesn't indicate that. [00:13:31] Speaker 04: She just gave a quote to the writer. [00:13:33] Speaker 04: She doesn't know where in the article he's going to put her quote, does she? [00:13:37] Speaker 00: No, but I think it's a reasonable inference that she engaged in additional colloquy with the reporter to get this information. [00:13:47] Speaker 00: There's no other information or indication where the reporter got any of this information otherwise. [00:13:56] Speaker 00: other than from Ms. [00:13:57] Speaker 00: McNutt. [00:13:58] Speaker 00: And again, on 12b6, that's a reasonable inference. [00:14:05] Speaker 00: Isn't it? [00:14:05] Speaker 04: I mean, there might be other sources for this article besides Ms. [00:14:08] Speaker 00: McNutt. [00:14:09] Speaker 00: There's a universe of possibilities, but what's a reasonable inference? [00:14:13] Speaker 00: And I think on 12b6, that that is a reasonable inference that the court has to give on the pleading of the complaint. [00:14:24] Speaker 04: You're asking us to infer that she told the author that. [00:14:30] Speaker 04: Was removed for sexual harassment because that would be defamatory in and of itself. [00:14:35] Speaker 00: Yes, and I think that that's clear. [00:14:37] Speaker 00: Well, the fact that it's coupled with other NAS members who were ejected for sexual harassment, I think it's clear from the positioning that that's what the statement was about. [00:14:56] Speaker 00: The removals should convey that NAS members need to be role models not only in what they have achieved, but also in setting the highest standards for professional conduct. [00:15:06] Speaker 00: I don't think that can be extracted in a defamation for implication claim. [00:15:11] Speaker 00: I don't think that that can be extracted. [00:15:24] Speaker 04: Thank you and we'll give you two minutes for rebuttal. [00:15:27] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:15:37] Speaker 02: May it please the court, my name is Carla Grossenbacher, and I represent the National Academy of Sciences and Marcia McNutt. [00:15:44] Speaker 02: We ask this court to affirm the decisions of the district court dismissing appellant's claims. [00:15:49] Speaker 02: As the district court concluded, appellant has failed to state a claim. [00:15:53] Speaker 02: NAS made truthful statements about why it rescinded the appellant's NAS membership, and that truthful statement cannot form the basis for a defamation claim. [00:16:03] Speaker 02: At no time did NAS or Ms. [00:16:05] Speaker 02: McNutt [00:16:06] Speaker 02: assert that a parent had engaged in sexual harassment or otherwise state what Mr. Castillo had done or not done to violate the code of conduct. [00:16:16] Speaker 02: Indeed, in concluding that he violated the code of conduct, NAS did not have to find that he engaged in sexual harassment. [00:16:25] Speaker 02: Moreover, as to defamation by implication, which is the pathway for a defendant to be held liable under defamation law for an otherwise truthful statement, it is a rigorous standard, as this court has recognized. [00:16:40] Speaker 02: A statement that merely conveys materially true facts from which a defamatory inference can reasonably be drawn is not enough. [00:16:49] Speaker 02: There must be affirmative evidence that my clients intended or endorsed a defamatory meaning to any of their statements. [00:16:56] Speaker 02: There is none in this case. [00:16:59] Speaker 02: Appellant makes much of the fact that Ms. [00:17:00] Speaker 02: McNutt was quoted in a Science Insider magazine article. [00:17:04] Speaker 02: However, Appellant concedes in his brief that the quote from McNutt that appears in the article is nothing more than a neutral statement of bland principles. [00:17:14] Speaker 02: Those are his words. [00:17:16] Speaker 02: McNutt's comment does not even mention Mr. Castillo. [00:17:19] Speaker 04: The most favorable reading from the perspective of the plaintiff would be that [00:17:28] Speaker 04: Ms. [00:17:28] Speaker 04: McNutt has grouped Mr. Castillo-Butters with the two other people who were removed for sexual harassment, because the quote says, NASS President Marsha McNutt says that the removals should convey that NASS members need to be role models, not only in what they have achieved, but also in setting the high standards for professional conduct. [00:17:53] Speaker 04: And I guess the strongest argument to be made [00:17:56] Speaker 04: for the plaintiff is that she has grouped him with the other two, where it's known that the other two were removed for sexual harassment. [00:18:06] Speaker 02: Well, I would say that it's the reporter who grouped them together, because if we look at the statement on the website on October 15, there was another person on there that no one is claiming engaged in sexual harassment. [00:18:20] Speaker 02: So Ms. [00:18:20] Speaker 02: McNutt, I think, was referring to what had been published on the website the same day as the article, which was, I believe, a total of four people who had been [00:18:33] Speaker 02: ejected from membership. [00:18:34] Speaker 04: Is that a factual question, though, that should survive dismissal, if it depends on what she was referring to? [00:18:41] Speaker 02: I don't think it depends on what she's referring to, because I do think it is the reporter who grouped them all together. [00:18:47] Speaker 02: Because again, all that the website says. [00:18:50] Speaker 04: President Marsha McNutt says the removals period should convey that NASS members need to, et cetera, et cetera. [00:18:58] Speaker 04: So I think that this [00:19:02] Speaker 04: Article is quoting Ms. [00:19:04] Speaker 04: McNutt as saying that the removals, plural, should convey. [00:19:07] Speaker 04: And is this a factual question that matters? [00:19:10] Speaker 04: What removals was she talking about? [00:19:12] Speaker 04: Was she talking about the ones for sexual harassment, which might group Castillo-Butters with sexual harassment? [00:19:19] Speaker 02: I don't think so, because then it goes back to the quote that Your Honor has pointed to a number of times, which is that may be an inference, but it's different than an affirmative statement by Ms. [00:19:32] Speaker 02: McNutt showing her intent to endorse the defamatory meaning specifically, which is the rigorous showing that is required under the defamation by implication standard. [00:19:44] Speaker 03: Let me take you back to the basic question of whether the statements defamatory, the announcements that were made. [00:19:51] Speaker 03: There's a case called Milkovich versus Lorraine Journal, Supreme Court, 1990. [00:20:01] Speaker 03: The issue of falsity relates to the defamatory facts implied by a statement. [00:20:08] Speaker 03: For instance, a statement, I think Jones lied, may be provable as false on two levels. [00:20:14] Speaker 03: First, that the speaker really did not think Jones had lied, but said it anyway. [00:20:19] Speaker 03: And second, that Jones really had not lied. [00:20:23] Speaker 03: It is, of course, the second level of falsity, which would ordinarily serve as the basis for a defamation action, which in this instance would be that he violated the code of conduct. [00:20:36] Speaker 03: So his claim is, you're saying I violated the code of conduct. [00:20:40] Speaker 03: That is false. [00:20:42] Speaker 03: I didn't do the things that would constitute a violation of the code of conduct. [00:20:47] Speaker 03: So to skirt the issue and say, well, it's true that that's why he was thrown out doesn't resolve the matter. [00:20:56] Speaker 02: Well, we would take the position that it is a verifiably true statement that this is the reason why he was ejected from the membership of NAS. [00:21:07] Speaker 02: And that if you want to take that true statement and make a defamation, you've got to meet the rigorous standard for defamation by implication. [00:21:16] Speaker 02: That that's what that standard is there for if you have an otherwise truthful statement. [00:21:21] Speaker 02: And they admit it is [00:21:23] Speaker 02: true that this is the reason why we rescinded his membership. [00:21:27] Speaker 02: Now, we specifically didn't say what he did or didn't do that violated the code of conduct. [00:21:32] Speaker 02: And there are a number of things under the code of conduct, as Your Honor pointed out, that don't meet the odious and infamous standard for a defamatory statement. [00:21:41] Speaker 03: I'm not sure that I can necessarily agree with that. [00:21:43] Speaker 03: I mean, if you're expelled from the professional society and honorific professional society for unknown reasons, [00:21:51] Speaker 03: It is itself very damaging. [00:21:58] Speaker 02: Yes, but this court has held that the mere, for example, termination of employment, which could similarly be said to be defamatory because you didn't get fired for no reason, is not enough to constitute defamation. [00:22:15] Speaker 02: I believe that was the Clampett case. [00:22:17] Speaker 03: But here it's not for no reason. [00:22:19] Speaker 03: It's that you were expelled for [00:22:21] Speaker 03: A code of conduct violation. [00:22:24] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:22:26] Speaker 03: So it's not just that you were expelled. [00:22:28] Speaker 03: You were expelled for a code of conduct violation. [00:22:30] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:22:31] Speaker 02: But we would submit that not every violation of the code of conduct is a type of conduct that meets the high standard for what's defamatory. [00:22:41] Speaker 02: It's got to be something that's more than offensive under the District of Columbia [00:22:46] Speaker 02: legal standard for defamation. [00:22:48] Speaker 02: So it may be offensive to say that I wasn't respectful and I wasn't collegial, but I don't think it's defamatory to say that about someone. [00:22:55] Speaker 03: He was either, let's say, a rapist or not genteeled. [00:23:02] Speaker 03: We're not going to say which. [00:23:06] Speaker 02: understood. [00:23:07] Speaker 02: But we specifically didn't say that he was any of those things. [00:23:12] Speaker 02: And we absolutely didn't have to make any determination that, for example, he engaged in sexual harassment. [00:23:19] Speaker 02: We could have read the investigation report that Mr. Castillo submitted to NAS and said, we're not going to get into whether this is sexual harassment or bullying or discrimination. [00:23:29] Speaker 02: We are simply going to determine that this [00:23:31] Speaker 02: conduct does not meet our standard as an organization. [00:23:34] Speaker 02: And then we ejected him from the membership. [00:23:39] Speaker 02: So we would submit that there was no actual defamation because our statement on the website was true. [00:23:47] Speaker 02: And Ms. [00:23:47] Speaker 02: McNutt's statement in the article was a neutral statement that was also a true statement of standards. [00:23:55] Speaker 04: What will the statement about it being true [00:23:58] Speaker 04: You're saying that it is true that he was. [00:24:02] Speaker 04: Ejected for a violation of the code of conduct. [00:24:08] Speaker 04: But I think that the implication of that statement is he violated the code of conduct. [00:24:15] Speaker 04: That is the, that's you saying that he violated the code of conduct. [00:24:20] Speaker 04: That's saying that, and he's saying that that part of it is not true. [00:24:23] Speaker 04: So I think that that aspect of the argument is a little bit, in my view, kind of difficult because as Judge Ginsburg said, what if your code of conduct said, or what if you said we're rejecting him because he either was impolite or murdered somebody? [00:24:38] Speaker 04: I mean, the implication is there that he did something very serious and he's denying that he violated the code of conduct at all. [00:24:46] Speaker 04: So I think it's hard to say that this is objectively true if you're depending on just saying, well, we ejected him for this reason, because that reason implies that you found that he violated the code of conduct. [00:24:59] Speaker 04: But I think the more difficult hurdle for the plaintiff is that [00:25:03] Speaker 04: legal standard is that it must paint him out to be odious. [00:25:08] Speaker 04: And I don't know that violating section four must paint him out to be odious if that can mean that he was not collegial. [00:25:18] Speaker 02: Yeah, so we would agree with that latter point. [00:25:22] Speaker 02: You know, we still submit that it is a verifiably true fact that this was the reason, but if that is not... But the reason is that he in fact violated it. [00:25:34] Speaker 04: It's just wordplay if you say it's correct that we say we violated him for a violation. [00:25:38] Speaker 04: I mean, that statement is he violated the code of conduct and so we ejected him. [00:25:44] Speaker 04: But I think that's when you get to defamation by implication. [00:25:47] Speaker 04: Agreed. [00:25:48] Speaker 04: But I think that your argument that this is objectively true has some weaknesses. [00:25:53] Speaker 02: Understood. [00:25:53] Speaker 02: Understood. [00:25:54] Speaker 02: And again, we would say that a violation of the code of conduct, when we basically did everything to not say anything about what he did or didn't do, even though the Science Insider article put it out there, [00:26:11] Speaker 02: That again, it was not defamation per se or defamation by implication. [00:26:18] Speaker 02: For these reasons, we would ask that the court affirm the decisions of the district court, unless there are any other questions for me. [00:26:27] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:26:32] Speaker 04: I'll give you two minutes for rebuttal, Mr. Jones. [00:26:37] Speaker 00: Thank you, Judge Pan. [00:26:40] Speaker 00: Just a few things to follow up on. [00:26:44] Speaker 00: I think the issue and the courts [00:26:52] Speaker 00: seeing the issue, the problem that we have with the position that a truthful statement can't be defamatory and the position is that you have sort of a truthful statement that is bootstrapping a defamatory part of that statement and that the position is whether or not the code of conduct is violated is something that could be provable. [00:27:18] Speaker 00: And while it's true, that is the statement. [00:27:22] Speaker 00: That's the extent of the agreement on the truth of the statement. [00:27:26] Speaker 00: It is true that that statement was made. [00:27:30] Speaker 00: N.A.S. [00:27:32] Speaker 00: didn't need to provide any additional information about the reason for the ejection, but they did and specifically referred to section four of the code of conduct, which has this list of [00:27:50] Speaker 00: you know, everything from collegiality to sexual harassment. [00:27:55] Speaker 00: And so I think that also is a reasonable inference that NAS intended to convey a message that Dr. Castillo was being ejected for misconduct. [00:28:09] Speaker 00: And I think that violation of the code of conduct and misconduct, that's not a huge inferential leap. [00:28:17] Speaker 00: They could have simply announced that his membership was rescinded. [00:28:23] Speaker 00: And interestingly enough, I think if they had only announced that his membership was rescinded, I think that that's probably not defamatory. [00:28:32] Speaker 00: That's a truthful statement, possibly. [00:28:36] Speaker 00: I think if they said that he had committed sexual harassment, he had violated the code of conduct standing alone, I think that's a very clear case. [00:28:51] Speaker 00: We have, unless there are other questions, we have nothing further to put before the court. [00:28:56] Speaker 00: We stand on what's in our briefing. [00:28:59] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:29:01] Speaker 00: Thank you both. [00:29:01] Speaker 00: Thank you, Judge Pan, Judge Ginsburg, and Judge Henderson, when she hears the recording. [00:29:07] Speaker 04: Thank you very much.