opposed to the previous one the the hard really bite which was the fifty percent the fifty does a boy quite as much for that for the other one correct in your case i think what you just  as the state has presided in the previous argument bars and restaurants are allowed at a twenty five percent capacity so you could go watch a football game in a bar and be in a bar eating drinking smoking because mike you know that still has balding in bars and be there for two and a house hours ok watching a football game but you can't go to church and i order thirty five but the punchline of your supplemental brief is appellants request this chord reversed the district court's decision denying calvary chapel and mounds preliminary injunction and  all further proceedings accordingly there with is that still the release this was this was dated a few days ago is that still the relief you're seeking that is an admin among the relief that we are seeking and i am sure i heard you correct it but in terms of if there is going to be a remain on the interim relieved that your client would be satisfied for we have would be basically in direct of thirty anyone else have any questions well let me ask you this i gather that in the end drug center we're talking about you would want the court to say that because of the difference in the treatment yes that is fair to say and one of the differences between calvary chapel lone mountain and calvary chapel dayton valley is the trust of our argument is really on the basis of equal protection and this is something that both justice cavanagh in roman catholic diocese and in stats justice so scammony in the harvest rock guys one of the issues that i saw was that at the end of the day what the justices that were questioning councils in harvest raw was what is the focal point  of the issue with all these directives and the focal point is really risk of transmission the risk of transmission and of the disease is what we are looking at when we're looking at these catch and i judges especially appellate judges are not in a good position to make scientific judgments that affect the lives health and safety of our citizens especially in an environment where the data is changing every day it's trying to make the code spread and deaths is changing every day and what we're looking at here is a record that was made six months ago now ten months in a pandemic where we justice roberts in stating that judges are not the proper arbiters to determine what these ma medical requirements would be because of the fact that risk of transmission one of the things that justice roberts that was the risk of transmission is a lot lower in laundromats supermarkets so on and so forth and south bay now ten months after the data is whether it's there or not there when we look at cell bay and we look at harvest rock church one of the issues that we do have to address is the fact that ten months into a pandemic these are no longer emergency directives these are now standards and this is what just discourse age and justice also do so saying that would give your church will leave right now and up to christmas time or do you just want us to remain with the general instructions favorable to you but that would colleague in the earlier case when i pushed him that seemed to be what he was was willing to go with i think he was but i think he was using directive fifty i'm sorry dresser twenty whynot wage was based on fifty percent now i distinguish our position as we are willing to go with the twenty five percent capacity that is present on cars and if you would like us to give an injunction to that effect right now not just right ok let me ask you this though we have we if i understand your question correctly i believe that you could rule on twenty one as it stands today because you do have jurisdiction and that is it minute b executive order that is before you today and thirty five i think that you can give an advisory opinion on the basis of the fact that our argument remember lone mountains argument to distinguish standard for looking at twenty one dollars and if you used twenty one dollars as setting the standard for equal protection and using whether it's a twenty five percent or whether it's a fifty percent what you could do is you could use that as the base says she will apply whether it's thirty five like a sad story weeks ago we had two hundred and fifty people and before  that fifty people but i think the percent capacity so if you use twenty one dollars is the standard what that could be almost like a blueprint if you allowed twenty five percent capacity or thirty five percent or fifty percent   in other words your underlying idea that religious services can spread the virus and so forth has a has a great deal of merit to it which would justify having some kind of overarching category but when you begin with a regulation that names ellis of worship as a particular teta gore and comes up with different numbers rather than saying houses of worship are like something else how can you say it's neutral or generally applicable i'm just trying think we just lost mr new it's neutral and generally applicable if you if you said houses of worship are part of the same category as ours restaurants museums or something you have an argument  these things were neutral i do understand this horse skepticism on not having been through the original oral argument as well well counsel i think it's more than skepticism i think the supreme court has made it very clear in the diocese case that when you treat it is like bike repair shops and liquor stores and the like are more favorably than houses of retail are more favorably than houses of worship and under thirty five dollars it's all non retail outdoor venues as well and i just don't see that with the guidance we've gotten from the has told us i think there's i think what the supreme court has told us in roman catholic as addressed in harvest rock church is that new york's restrictions  it is clear that in an absolute sense the red in or and so is ten and twenty five are more severe but the supreme court dropped it back to the yellows which is rather less severe that undercut your argument that the alleged verity difference the is the controlling issue here i mean i get your point about the the point not to but it seems to me what they're saying we have a different fact situation in terms of just looking at the nature of what the hardest rock restrictions are which is virtually or almost all of california citizens they are absolutely prohibited from indoor religious services at the mo which will be very easy to consider in terms of if you just consider on paper as a reviewing court the size this is different than some other life activity ever go it must be struck what do we do in the meantime like well i mean the supreme court of barred the imposition of the ban and twenty five limit what do we do in this case with respect to direct the twenty one let's just say i would that be we send it back to the district at this point in terms of whether the way to address this saying this issue is to to remove the person how or to go in the different direction should help cause warrant of all let's go back to seven months ago when justice roberts recommended or hind that judges should really exercise restraint on these gubernatorial directives and not issue opinions on these gubernatorial draft as at that time most of the decisions that were filtering their way up through the circuit were one wants to six weeks post pandemic at this time we are ten mines post pandemic and now one of the things that we see come out of roman catholic diocese is that the supreme court is now saying now's the time to get involved now's the time for you guys to exercise that judicial reveal and lock down and clamp down on these arbitrary executive directors that vary from state to state brooklyn had ten people twenty five people chill of this to has one hundred people nevada las vegas has fifty people these are arbitrary numbers and now is the time for the courts to start exercising