case filing as far as receipt of notice and so i did i receive the court's first letter of the twenty second until december one and then yes which was direct in the mccann had actually contacted me and that's how i found out about the court's letter of november twenty second with reference to the court's order of december seventh indicate in the brief should be father while not rejected your access your documents were placed in blocked by junk e mail and therefore when the court contacted me as when i went into the pacer system i learned of the court's order that i gave to the macand it was that the short notice that i received of the matter there was one in which we had to make a decision as to which council would be able to file a brief in the matter when i received notice on december one of the court had indicated that a brief had to be filed by december third it was necessary to then bring in or to look for appellate counsel to deal with the matter one you could and what i'm in the katyn is that the actual notice of the order was on december one for a brief dillon and that's when i received notice correct for a brief due on december third second and he presses forward he's to at that point his first amendment rights aren't denied he's told by police officers on the ground who are not part of the plot not part of this you labrat skiing supposedly launched by the went to the governor and by all accounts the governor agreed give him a slot in the roster the confusion is where that was the governor's the governor the senator the governor's press  but what happened was after the first after he approached the first set of stairs and was turned down he encountered police officer said wait let's strike now and i think what is especially significant is what happens next instead of waiting to have  merely on a first amendment violation but actually a defamation of character violation because of the actions of mr benton mr else go what was submitted to the jury footnote as indicated in the court's order you know that they found that there the evidence might not have been sufficient the court never dealt with that issue because of the f correct and the judgment that was issued by the court had merely less first amendment in the actual judgment but the jury verdict form and as submitted to the jury dealt with the issue of defamation because a major part of the case was with reference t public that resulted as a result of the actions of the defendants in this matter and that there had been significant press coverage as well as on the television and radio coverage upon the first amendment and all that they have argued is on the first amendment that's not the only issue that had been submitted to the jury and looking at the jury verdict form in this matter would show to the court that beyond the first amendment this additional issue was submitted and all entangled together for the jury's consideration and so that when the jury returned a they were not state actors or acting in concert to it certain state actors in this matter there's evidence that these individuals were actually the that and if the court would read the testimony there is contrary evidence of that of where mr hector indicated that there had been a meeting of the individuals prior to the event that e designated public public forum and the evidence of that is what reference to the event that was being held was one in which a number of dignitaries from around the world had been invited and were present there was a large gathering of individuals for this hundred and fifty of the mancipation to be held at an frederick's that was called the bandstand an area in which speeches defamation included and in the trial of the matter the public record ince of the event was presented to the jury there was a public television station in which the event was shown and broadcast as well as newspaper articles and the kid that senator bryan was actions of the appellant's in this matter cause that information to be spread throughout the virginal community as senator bryan be an individual who cause because the event had not correct and you are and what was presented to the jury in this matter showed the statements of ben ten else go with reference to the fact that senator bryan what the claim that senator bryan had been responsible for was broadcast on the radio as well as television and within the trial evidence of that was presented to the jury of the fact of what the defendants had indicated and stated that senator bryan had done a claim as to what he had done so within the trial transcript itself there is evidence of the defendant statement into and i believe the one question was first amendment and it was and all the the presentation the closing arguments was of of plaintiff's counsel was all on the deprivation based on a first amendment violation and that's without question in the record the judgment we are appealing from is the first is from the some thousand each against them on the first amendment violation there's no judgment entered on like an opportunity to file a written brief to see if this was submitted on defamation and if the verdict can in any way be interpreted as including a defamation claim