would help the outcome of that is ntc future similar lawsuits like that? do you think that is your path to getting justice? >> you know, i was asked on my interview on cnn last year, and what am i going to sue for, being really creepy? that set something that would stand up in court, what i'm more concerned about is as a culture in our country what is acceptable behavior, and if the standards that our present is setting come it's not high enough right now. >> i mean, the court of public opinion of the would be the best place in my opinion for this to be judged. like you said it is a cultural thing and we should let politicians get away with this. >> in my situation, it's so old that i don't even think the judge would even enter into any sort of case on it. and i don't have any thoughts of going to the courts for this. this is really a matter of we have to deal with the public, and we have to deal with attitudes and changing the cultural phenomenon here so i don't think the courts are the place to go. >> allison with cnn. when you had that episode with mr.

in terms of the third variance, street frontage, ntc requires that the first 25 deck be active uses. we have 81% of our ground floor where we cannot do parking, so for us, the amount of four parking spaces, the street front variance is required. i'm going to address the appellant's salty claims that are in their letter. we can talk about the tree more in the rebuttal. the first is the lgbt designation should not be an excuse not to comply with the code. i think variances are just for that purpose to recognize extraordinary circumstances such as an historic structure, and preservation of this resource is a public good, in the variance decision, it says significant area that would otherwise be included in the project's billable envelope is lost due to the potential impacts of the existing historic building, and the rear yard variance is necessary to accommodate a reasonable amount of development. this is -- to the appellant claims that our proposed expansion -- sorry, it will -- we'll address that in the rebuttal, the business about their tree. third, the appellant claims that the rear