“reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process" That statement doesn't necessarily mean her claims were not substantial, only that for people to take the claims as fact, they need to be proven in a court of law. Which is a reasonable. I'm not saying that everything she claimed is true either, but from what I read ( haven't finished reading the motion to be fair) her lawyer still argues substantial claims, not that it's opinion only, which is why I included the 12b quote.