lot of substantive issues some of them are novel and others there's a pretty wide breadth of facts alleging the case however we think that this case turns on procedure more than anything else and that's where i'd like to begin we believe that the district court's decision as issued in our brief did not afford my clients the benefit of the rule eight standard even as refined by the the cardigan case which was just recently decided by this court twenty fifteen again assess the issue of what notice pleading is and notice pleading is not meant to be pleading with specificity it is not meant to be a prelude to prove your prim and what we have in this case is a twelve c motion a judgment on the pleadings motion and a motion to amend the complaint that were both before the district court and respectfully we believe that the district  court review the complaint and hold my client mr nader is not only to a standard that is higher than twamley in it all but but a standard that would even exceed pleading with specificity under rule nine b really absolutely and we believe that we met that both in the amended complaint and second amended complaint and of course you have to assess church and the merits of the case when and when reviewing that but the court has said before we get to the merits that you have to when you're looking at plausibility take a holistic approach you need to use common sense you still need to afford reasonable inferences to the to the or to the nonmoving party in this case and you need to allow that individual to have all the benefits afforded on a twelve motion and we believe that was met here now we're well aware of the fact on the merits and on the facts that we can use cases are typically not meant to be in federal district court nine hundred eighty three cases have been held by this court and by other courts to be particularly difficult cases  and there has to be as justice brier pointed out in the village will brook case the quote unquote x factor at issue and the run of the mill land use cases as you see is the developer or a property owner not getting his way before district before a planning board or zoning board and then suing for first amendment retaliation or equal protection claiming that the animosity and in the maliciousness stem from anti development sentiments or neighboring objections in the like this is not that case this is a unique case you know the future of this the whole the the truth is that you file here is the  with the issue of whether a real estate developer property owner seeking redress of petitioning the government to seek redress for grievances before a zoning  important issue the reasoning the hampton court made in what the other courts six thirty circuit ninth circuit and i believe the district of columbia if i remember correctly had essentially stated that the first amendment applies to all levels of petitioning the government it applies not only to petitioning the court in filing claims for judicial process but it also involves  dispute is the one with first amendment interests both sides the government has an interest in being able to speak when they have contamination of the water supply of a particular town that happens to be the record in this case and so we get back to at the first circuit has never viewed it in those terms your honor i think we have to look at the two issues the issue of whether its property owner petition before zoning board a local board of that nature whether that constitutes legitimate petition kind of within the bounds of the first amendment is in fact an undecided issue in this jurisdiction but the legal issue itself has been decided in other jurisdictions yes but that's what am i straining because oh broad statements of law like that are things that we and not to  the animosity in maliciousness stem from i couldn't find a case in any jurisdiction where you had a property owner out bid a governmental entity in purchasing a piece of property which is what happened in this case and then seek to develop that property by way of petitioning and free speech before the local entity and then have the government retaliate in such a way that it didn't this case now george leisure you're  absolutely correct but the government certainly has a free speech right but just as any other person who has a free speech right that cannot be based on false reasons maliciousness except for a and that ultimately resulted in the project getting tonight in the first place the rumors that were spread were false and that's what we've pleaded and we prove that through evidence and we allege that in the complaint that the that the expert testimony that was presented before the planning board and the in the board of health was in fact proof that there were no issues with nitrates or drinking water etc we put the no no no no no you don't start at the end of the process you scientific evidence it was not unreasonable for anyone who want to put your client hayes says given this reasonable concern so that the what distinguishes this case and maybe in the end the concerns were proven not to be true but that doesn't mean government is not entitled to have those but when you have to draw inferences when you're looking at the rule twelve standard when you're looking yeah any inferences i draw are that the water district was perfectly justified in having these concerns and actually was who were required to had the facts attached to the and pled in the complaint the fact that the water district itself had produced reports and we let this that demonstrated that there weren't any nitrate issues that even came close to the e p a or d p level we played the fact that the water district at the very time that they were complaining and taking this adverse action against my client it's much broader than we could talk about in thirteen minutes of time produce to the well they were so concerned about then our client the water district itself is running a septic system for their treatment plant closer to the well then then our then our client's property and the mili as was held in the paling case which i know judgement presided over and that was an equal protection case the pleading standards are even further relaxed and this circuit has helped win that maliciousness and that animosity is there and the x factor exists in this case what happened as i stated before is you have to read the whole complaint in context we need to look at the entirety of the complaint and the second amended complaint set forth with even more specificity so i understand that the e p a s website had an article saying nitrates nitrates and ground water can cause issues but that is a factual issue they have to have some basis for that they can't be sending reports a report your honor didn't apply to my clients project because if it comes to how much level of nitrates is in the groundwater that's an expert opinion we're asking for stating and in saying what you are saying in front of these local boards thank your hon morning your honor john davis something the seekonk water district as well as the superintendent of the rubber nardo with me is my associate so barnett this is a case in which the plaintiff alleges certain civil rights violations as a result of scrutiny given to their project within the town of seekonk i think my brothers mention that there have been a number of land use cases brought before this court in the past that have not met with a great deal of success we maintain that this case is even less compelling than most of the cases that this circuit court has rejected in the past for three reasons number one the defendants the defendant's activities were exactly the same as the plaintiffs the defendants were engaged in participation with the local boards they were in front of the local boards they were asked to be in front of local boards to give their assessment to give their input with respect to the concerns that the local boards had with respect to this particular project second of all the defendants here were not the decision makers we're not the local board we are a separate legal entity but the the project was being scrutinized by the board of health within the town of seekonk and the planning board within the t before those bodies that my client appeared and finally you're on it the plaintiffs got but they asked for my client apparently was not sufficiently persuasive to do to get further scrutiny of this particular project the plaintiffs got what they were looking for so with all of those reasons to run i would suggest that this is a far less compelling case to find that the defendants engaged in something to do process violations equal product equal equal protection violations or violations of the  amendment rights the record is replete with the month number of facts and details concerning the plaintiff's project and the concerns the legitimate concerns that the seekonk water district had many of those facts are set up with the materials that my opponent submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion judgment on the pleadings seekonk water district provides water to twelve thousand five hundred people within the town of c conn and five hundred businesses the seekonk water comes they that most of that water comes from the the wellhead the well field that provides about eighty to eighty five percent of the drinking water for the town of seekonk the project here was proposed to be within a thousand feet of that particular wealthy of less than a quarter of a mile and it was conceded that by plaintiffs that that was probably the closest residential development ever proposed within the town of seekonk in connect in proximity to those particular wellheads the aquifer was the sole source and this is in the other material submitted in opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings the aquifer here is the sole source of water for the time to seek and they don't have other other sources and in that particular case source protection is of particular importance this this particular aquifer is highly vulnerable to contaminants and it's that said we're in the materials because because of the geo logic i'm sorry the hydrogen logical make up of the property that the land there's no clay barriers for example so the the the material leach from these particular homes could very easily get into the property could get it very couldn't very easily get into the water supply the both the e p a and the d list nitrate as a inorganic chemical contempt they both listed they both limit nitrates in public drinking water they limited to ten milligrams per liter or ten parts per million and finally they the link nitrates in public drinking water to health risks including the concerns for newborns that may have problems with oxygenation if they can if they consume thi they were zero to six months old and those are concerns that were articulated by mr bernard o in front of the board of health and in front of the planning court nonetheless the plaintiffs got what they wanted they brought this action against my clients they meet they maintain that we have violated the first amendment rights we have cited the goldstein versus calvin case you're on is in which this court said that the public officials have first amendment rights and not only in that course that cases the courts say the public officials have first amendment rights they have said that they also may have an obligation to speak out on matters of public concern that's exactly what we have here we have a situation where mr bernardo spoke out on matters of public concern i'm sure my brother would agree that these were matters of public concern and he may have been in fact derelict in his duties if he did not but again this is this is a case even more compelling i think then the goldstein case because in the in this case we're talking about public debate we're talking about hearings open to the public what we're talking about meetings up in the public where both sides of an issue pro and con air their differences they air that they try to convince the body that their their point of one fifty actually references that the reason the water district was doing this was because they wanted to protect the property they wanted to see it undeveloped and that was a question made to mr bernard oh during one of the hearings that was that that's that's in the record but with baltimore sun case they said you would have to be disclosure personal information with respect to the plaintiffs or they said it would have to be something threatening coercive or intimidating as to intimate that punishment sanctions or adverse regulatory action would imminently follow those the types and if you could show that and this certainly no allegations of that sort of a motive goldstein said in the court in that case so that's where you may have you don't have that here even before you can get to the will or even motive they don't have some of all they did was list in their proposed second amended complaint ten projects that were within the town of seekonk and those temperate they they mentioned nothing about the proximity of those projects the size of those projects the number of homes whether we're talking three or fifty and most important don't even mention the time frame and this court has said in the cordiality case that time frame is very important particularly in the land use context because policies may change over time and in this particular case when when mr bernardo said before the board of health and before the pending board that would beginning to get elevated levels of nitrate in the wells that we are monitoring you know that school that can be a change of heart that that can evidence what why there was concern why there was particular concern on the part of the the water district that at that time and then the second part of course with respect to equal protection is you have to show that there was no rational basis for treating them differently than other projects similarly situated and as the court sees in the record there was at least a rational basis it was this nothing holy arbitrary about the position taken by east what a district in this particular case so though they fail right there with respect and equal protection before you can even get to the question of motive and with respect to substantive due process run of the courts have said multiple times that with respect to substantive due just doesn't measure up you don't have the disparaging comments you don't have you don't have a lot of attack this will attack against the plaintiffs i mean some of the cases the courts have said don't rise to the love of something of substance to the process as you have to show truly horrendous behavior truly given this behavior and certainly there are no facts alleged in this complaint to suggest that there was any truly horrendous behavior on the part of mr bernard o or the c com water just or with respect to this particular project he melpomene as well you might so that when with respect to mr bernardo he would be entirely qualified immunity with respect to the now there are no no allegations either in the amended complaint in the amended complaint with the second amended complaint detailing that the  conduct here was done pursuant to a policy custom or practice and back their allegations of equal protection seem to be contrary to that we have been singled out unfairly by other by the defendants in this particular case here was trying to course my client to withdraw his petition that was before the planning board in abandon his development intimidation except for the case law is clear that and i think it was the city of st louis case that says if one government official goes around and persuades other government officials to take adverse action against somebody out of malice and in violation of their constitutional rights then in fact that can constitute a constitutional rights violation and we didn't just get what we want my client was significantly harmed we had to eliminate a lot we had to fight three different  and i agree with counsel state and one of the questions that i believe this court asked the context of why when and how this happened is a perfect example that this was not just limited to mr bernardo or the seekonk water district appearing before boards and the same time as the pine hill estates project so timeline you have my client opening the water district seeking approvals for pine hills the maliciousness is there you have this work history to campaign this totally unrelated project not near the wellheads in another area of town all he seeking before the water district is a tie into their water line well the water district says well we might want to have what's called the line in other words connected to different locations well that's a very expensive operation their primary concern was water pressure and fire flow we went on for six months before that board and proved through our engineers and the water districts engineer as played in our complaint that we  fire flow requirement and then at the very last hearing a few minutes before the boat mr bernardo says well it's not only water pressure we're dealing with water quality issues so we're going to force you to loop the line and then the boat came down and then six months later you have another subdivision same circumstances called the jacob hill subdivision where the water district allow the wind to be dead ended and ran their all water quality test which they purposely and this was played in the complaint purpose requests did not run on our project so right there the animosity and the reason for that is the fact that the water district was trying to punish my client and behind the scenes has attached to our motion to amend mr bernardo sending e mails saying don't tell the people in seekonk hold the water is their drinking all of these questions or issues of fact motive intent issues of fact that can be determined on a motion to dismiss thank you for your time this morning your hono