they were faced with a course choice we can use or continue our ministry and face liability under the gang act we can demand it was ministry so that we can reveal on our humanity that we are not actually gang members what about which is what the trial court focused on is that while the getting prevention is not the proper standard here it is a prevention we effectively prevented so we don't use prevention or it isn't prevention which is your argument it is prevention but we don't prevention is not the standard here i think very very early but let's get into the more complicated issue of the sanctions the trial court tonight sanctions correct correct if you haven't seems to indicate that the case was litigated for city or the police department oh do you know it's the elephant police department well that's a different entity than the city isn't it it was who took the action to remove the names i state was obliged to respond to those as well that's correct so was how many of our how much of the time was as a result of the state's impetus as opposed to responding to the replying to  his argument he's referring to a general chilling effect so to speak on the religious activities but tell us why there was no chilling effect on the the i think it's relating to the two points on or somewhere on the street that they wanted the ability to communicate with them without perhaps be seen by a police officer communicating with them you know they are stephen mission is to convert  he's gay members as possible the impact of not being able to have these random chance encounters is not a substantial burden the fact that their request injunction was to keep them that i didn't know and attempt the proselytize that they might do me harm does that not seem a probable resolution of any attempts to go outside and deal with of first impression i think that the issue before the court really needs to be split into two of your shoes and that is the difference between a protected action that would be in violation of the statute the game here and the difference between whether it protection action is in violation of the requested r so in seeking to determine whether there was a violation of the game and we're looking at whether that is a substantial burden on someone's religious defend on the grounds that it is so specific president that they have to document that now and i think that they haven't i think that there are many other ways that they could have gone about the stated mission of hurting people away from gangs as in disha or evidence that they were number one gay members and that number two that injunction should be either because the i think that's a matter of perspective and a matter of time  yes but i think that had they known that perhaps their activity would not have been seen the way it was seen i also think that there's a equally reasonable didn't have a videotape with a live a lip reader we are extrapolated rationalizing based upon their association with known gang members at a funeral which is somewhat different than are arguing that this is probative and therefore it should be admissible as evidence it's it's one thing to suggest that they were there and you over heard them and you overheard them talking spirit tauriel things it's no them to say that guilt by association or mere association a funeral is evidence of guilt and in your response that seems to be what you're arguing or at least replying to me and that is that the this is not a chilling effect even though they attended a actually in fact a member but if you look at the case and it talks about whether you are having participated in actions and i think that in order to enjoyment remedies if that was the case because anytime you would bring a suit such as this people would conform their behavior to the standard and then say that they no members should have any case load that supports you argument that it would be operational respectively even though the parties at the time it would be entered were no longer gang members you have bases and point to support i don't have any case is pretty clear on that point i think that it the term in active gang member doesn't mean much to me i don't know what it means and the reason why i don't know what it means here is this is a binary question either you are a gang member in effect or you're not you're not inactive you're not transgender in other words what if this person decided to change their sex and remain a gang member would there have been a difference though because they would still be in effect aga member but if they're inactive does that mean that they're no longer a gay member or does it just mean that they're a gang member i address and they are factually again members it seems to me your argument is because they were called in active as opposed to excommunicate or higher or withdrawn or expelled or excommunicated but they're still subject to this wall so i don't  so you know i understand exactly you're saying from a practical matter it has a lot of appeal what you're arguing but the point is for purposes of enforcing this nephew you probably have to acknowledge that there has to be some criteria and obviously relates to the police make  cruel violation of the statute at the time the complaint was filed and seek an appropriate remedy and so the remedy that we were seeking was for the safety of the community we don't want you out congregating with testimony in two thousand and twelve laid out clearly that you were not considered gang members and the longer an approximate years two years from that time period i saw that brings us to what you're fourteen when there's right yes and based upon trial court related possibly the opinion or disposition issued by this court you think it might be possible that the criteria that this the police choose might be secondary or tertiary or so so what i'm suggesting without ordering that maybe the criteria that the ocean police uses should be reviewed with a serious determine what their wants to surveil were it wants to indicate to its officers be aware this may be a gang member but before you file a lawsuit establishing the fact that you're going to see conjunct to rel upon the criteria the police officers used on their daily beat you might consider that maybe some of the criteria do not establish probable cause don't even s that would entitle someone to an injunction make you any other questions thank you