nat's by those time restrictions and if you're familiar with the our practices we do not strictly watch to satisfy our needs from this side of that this rather than give you extra time that you really have between what you what would have already said them what orally and what you said in your briefs we would deem to be sufficient so with that i will ask each side to step up if you're going to be arguing the case to identify yourself for the record at which time the appellant could proceed with the argument while the other side goes back to your table you it's still the same fifteen minutes that you'll be a september two thousand and eleven final order of the state board of elections that final order found that my original complaint against the respondent committee had been so be aware of that just to make sure that we cut the this thing apparently hear what you're saying ok i don't want to go over and too much detail the procedures that i've already gone through went to the august two thousand and eleven or a meeting of the board of elections there was a final order issued again against me i took the procedural step of the motion to reconsider so i went back to the board of elections that september and then yet another final order i guess the final final order was issued and pursuant to the coding and it ministry of code  there had been not a one filed within the required two business days of the receipt of the receipt was noted in the eventually felt that was amended wasn't it that's the real but that's the whole point of that would render your case moved namely a case that regardless of its merits at this point in time nothing could be done so that's why i'm asking you what is there still left well your honor this has nothing to do with whether or not i liked the restaurant or not or whether i'm seeking to overturn it or get my money back there's nothing to do it's a separate fact i'm trying to do is not spend a year just to see that the proper process is followed that the proper reporting is done that's all i say not just try to make your point so small yes an individual person who is self employed should not be able to islands here contribute in kind contributions such as creating a website but people who work for someone else between the contribution through service is made in of engaging as a member of a given political committee such as yourself donating your time and perhaps circulating material literature and perhaps even helping to assist in the printing or in the writing of this literature not been reported and rightfully so i will i will take the campaign finance requirements as a whole and if you look at the it through the pages of a part of  there is a tremendous emphasis on how contributions are accounted for and specifically determining the value for those contributions now i can make a if you allow done by a professional and the kind to be shown in question which was donated or to in my view contributed because it was a work  concept anything of value is something that refers to whether it is either in monetary terms or not monetary terms in which case there has to be an  labor has a market value whether it's professional labor or whether it's ordinary labor it isn't that said it's a marketable commodity with rules of supply and demand terminat eyes like our president formerly was if he were to use the talents as a community organizer to work for a political group you would say that labor has to be reported is that right if this is profession not again that is the issue in the c pretty answer a question that was posed already by calls for citizens if that person were not professional website designer and did the same thing and it's not too hard to do these days profession or career but is self taught were you draw the line between someone who is able to compose a website because they have market value and it is this is a great area because knowing statute you find a definition of what i fall interior is effect you don't find really a definition of what a contribution is you have for page after page of discussion about what chips all the requirements if it's nice yes if it's one hundred fifty dollars or more you have to report it with your name or if it's five hundred or more you have to report it with your employer and so on and so forth so the entire thrust of the find a campaign finance act is on disclosure and i am completely comfortable with a as the board even says in hits own guidelines a free time construction now i have to ask their asked rhetorically why would the legislature have inserted that description of voluntary services with him in that short sentence that starts with a predicate condition that in the employer employee relationship the employer is to be reporting so if this is really about freedom voluntary labor as not being recorded but in marginalizing and putting limits on the report ability of what an employer so that if the employer would make a charge that would have to be reported but if the worker volunteers it doesn't but leaves to the discretion of rational interpretation  of that it's an a for she already yes so to speak that if somebody is working for somebody else and volunteers their time it doesn't have to be reported even though they may even get paid by the employer for the time that they're voluntary on the other hand a foreshore out all the more so this week when someone is not being paid by anybody and is on theory or to view it in another place when the employer is of the employer employee relationship so there must have been some reason for it putting bad as the supreme that false as it were to the center of the set up being we have an employer employee relationship time  being contributor money is being contributor time and make sure dear employee that you report it now the only way i can see that this would have any usefulness rationally would be let's say the accountant or the lawyer who's working has been who services have been donated to a campaign he's being reimbursed by the employer of course but that person may have a lot of sympathy for that campaign as you know maybe i can help you out here in my free time so it is the head off the clock even though it may be a salaried position it's the off the clock nature not only of that with say a lawyer or accountant but anybody else working after they come  the court your honor he earth the court affirmed the board's decision for two reasons first of all as you're well aware is gottlieb's contributions purely in individual service as your questions indicate suggests that the correct interpretation of the statute is that all individual services are exempt not just those of people who are employed upon which the board put their information in the board communicated to the public as indicated by the copyright notice on the website what if a famous painter donates a million dollar a work strong is urging is one of the most destabilizing arguments it's been presented in the campaign finance system anywhere in the country that i'm aware no stake in the union the don't you make an exception for charges incurred by the volunteer in this if the equal mentor tools or any other accessories right that need he needed to volunteer are in so you don't have your road ahead when you volunteer your services if those services and gender a certain kind of expanse of correct off the wall of christie's and donated to the cabbie i think that's a contribution because that is it is a co product that has value even though they say that when he was alive he would pay for his lunch with jottings on a napkin i've heard that yes i've heard that george clooney if george clooney were to volunteer to be in your campaign commercial that's it i was in a very valuable thing but the first amendment applies to george clooney just as much as it does to my neighbor who was in a campaign distinction that if you were self employed mr casper isn't there still something about the product even though every product certainly according to karl marx is sub a result from the individual who is responsible for it's correct and in this rack in tears they go into the production of that product can be exempt from the definition of contribution whereas i don't believe the cost of the physical has she included those costs i believe that would be a contribution to the group because she paid out of her pocket and so this notion of professional there's a value to professionalism is also renders the statue just completely incomprehensible so you have to run for office you want to seek out volunteers your neighbors but that dissipate or your neighbor to the petition and the world can review your books but not vice versa that doesn't make any sense i'm any of this market value business that mr store everything has a market that not just legal services or accounting services or website design services circulating petitions has a market that i'm told the market value for that is a dollar signatures that's it ascertainable value stuff that's mr starr says is a thing of no value well there's a million secretaries in the world who get paid to do that there's a forty cost you could call it i believe there used to be this thing called kelly girls an office level where you could hire temporary office workers that's the cost that you get will void through the use of volunteers and the disclosure of volunteers runs the risk of rendering the statute unconstitutional in two separate ways that i talked about the first is this the first disclosure of volunteer names you know the case that i  famous one from the u s supreme court about alabama where alabama required in that way c p to surrender the names of its membership to the state to the government and they didn't want to do that and they prevailed at the supreme court  to be reported on most immediately back and i believe that those are the statute that we have regarding monetary contributions in the constitution to case that under buckley versus well that was decided by the supreme court in one thousand seventy four because the supreme court said that the risk of corruption or the fear of corruption the appearance of corruption by monetary contributions outweighed by disclosure because and this is the most important point what the supreme court said is that a contribution is indirect speech it's empowering someone else to speak when you contribute money to a campaign you're empowering back direct political speech where you are speaking yourself that's why i don't believe they can be limiting that's the second reason why i think that mr sarraj interpretation would render the statute unconstitutional all will apply in this case because this is a referendum and there's no limits on contributions to referendum for the reason i cite in my brief the u s supreme court case but the statute defines contributions the same for referenda committee as it does for can so what that means is that a person could volunteer only five thousand dollars worth of time whatever that so if it felt there was a charge five hundred dollars they could volunteer no more than ten hours for a campaign any cap follett your activity in the area of political speech i believe would render the statute on this and for that reason i believe that the board's decision was correct it is consistent with every interpretation of volunteer activity  in campaigns here that i'm aware of every state in the union no court anywhere in the country as ever worked declared volunteer services to be a contribution the board's decision was right should be for i'm happy to t well two things with regard to that the there is it puts a sign which if you look at the screenshot is something that miss miscavige contributed i don't know and actually as i say it makes no difference who contributed text because this was done in crude nation with one of the requirements of the statute to show that it was an election or communication take a look at the banner of the upper left that's a design element the design elements itself says something isn't communicating well in the world of the internet when you design something and make it available and there is no evidence that anyone else other than ms gottlieb the service contributor had anything to do with this website as soon as you have designed it and put it on the internet the first page view of any person shows that communication has been made by its very existence on the internet just as a billboard you don't you would have to prove that someone saw it broke campaign billboard to say that was an election or a communication so the design and putting on the internet are one in the same with communication there are inextricably individual rendering of voluntary personal services on the individuals residential present premises cetera et cetera is not a contribution provided the then the campaign finance act and the section is itself on constitutional so in summary what i'm asking is that he if this court find that my complaint had been file on justifiable grounds that it be rather remanded back to the board of elections for further their education in an open hearing so that i may have available to me the