may please the court my name is david i am the attorney for the appellant in this matter robert norse were before the court on a very simple set of facts with very very serious possible consequences of speech that it is stunning that any city would adopt these kinds of rules they absolutely prohibit referring to any council member by name already been decided in this well the white case certainly involved and ordinance as opposed to rules of decorum which from which it is obvious that the city of santa cruz lifted some language from phraseology but the structure of the language structure of the rules of decorum is quite different from the language structure of the ordinance and white in white the court interprete well you know they refer to white ok yet it says that the city's rules rules allow for similar interpretation i don't agree with that i don't think they do but assuming that that's an admission that that's how they're going to act in the future it doesn't say they are just asked by the district court judge if they require destruction and they skirted the issue and then in a footnote to the district court's opinion the court says this would be a much easier case  would just adopt the construction but for the reasons that i stated in our opening brief there is no way that this or that these rules can be read to require destruction because there's reference to expulsion in the first  someone says something it's too late they're already expelled from the meeting and it's not fair not to give a warning particularly in a case like this where it's not so obvious that what's being done here is disruptive in fact it was  kansas case i believe where the court takes the bright line distinction between public comment as being an open public forum the rest of the meeting not having that characteristic that's another circuit i'm not sure that that we believe that first amendment well in general and some of the analogies made in our brief for example change versus the morning school district we think it's particularly after year except they were there vans all day this was a one second incident now i'd like to reserve the rest of my points and authorities in the court below and i didn't bring those with me and i apologize at that point but i think it's part of the record and i think it's substantiated by ninth circuit cases in terms city counsel during oral communications a period when members of the public or press the councilwoman says that it's probably began to speak defendant krohn who's the mayor told her that public comment was have to take that at its face value to the extent that it's over with respect to the position of the city in this particular case i don't know why  the judge below said that in his opinion with respect to the city something the texas city would take a position because this is what transpired in the moving papers below in the city to speech that causes disruption and the allegations and plaintiff's complaint reveal the defense of not enforcing rules with that idea and mine close quote i responded my reply brief defendant quote as did the city in this in the city of norwalk case pro offered this court a construction of the rules to which they are readily susceptible and in accordance with city of norwalk and then i indicate i went on mean i mean you're talking in circles what is the disruption what i'm trying to say and if i could take us through this if somebody did something to back this courtroom  gestures and and he wasn't supposed to be speaking at that time in any fashion then i see that it's a distraction that it has to be you can be either and the reason is again and i point out to the the supreme court case which this court cited in kind that controller access to a  go there and i don't want to take the court on or have the core take me on on that issue because i don't think we need to go there is because he wasn't even speaking rightfully at that time if he was in public comment at the podium recognized and said i think you guys run a place like this that we would have a different issue and i suggest to you and you probably have intimated to me that i would have an argument position to argue with you but where we're at he wasn't there so he's completely outside the rules at that point and when you're outside the rules you're just wrapped if it's the nature of the beast otherwise why have the not orderly i equate not orderly with disruption now it's not in the sense and you know you're on it's easy it's not as easy to see because we don't have someone who is absolutely  creating complete havoc i understand that but i'm asking you to go down to the next level of looking at the importance of these rules the importance of these rules are to  keep orderly and structured and if you do those kinds of things it distorts the rules and that's the destruction well they sit down here ok and also lastly i would like to indicate in terms just very briefly is a must be with one minute fifteen seconds left  assertion what is the court look to to test the validity of that assertion well i think you can look to the rules which basically prohibit criticism of members of the council but don't prohibit at the same time of members of the council so well of the rules to be enforced according to his terms presumably it would make no difference if the sign said relax first this out with the mare shouldn't make any difference but the rules are tailored in a way that prohibits criticism without at the same time prohibiting for communication that would be a lot of story of the council members find that there should be an interesting relying on language i think it needs to be dealt with