may proceed thank you chief judge lynch good morning honors my name is paul paul and i have the privilege of representing jehovah's witnesses this morning chief judge lynch me i reserve three minutes for rebuttal yes you may have thank you your hon this case was first before this court four years ago as a result this court ordered the district court to take prompt action to remedy denials of access to public streets and yet we find ourselves once again before this court asking for assistance because of two reasons first the district court did not apply this court's clear direction that unmanned gates should have guards and second because the district court issued a s commonwealth defendants effectively removing them from the remedial process now as to understand gates we submit that the language of the direction in this court's first opinion was crystal clear that the only end gates needed a period of time within which to retain guards now this court did recognize that there was a limited exception for urbanisation is that might be very small have very limited resources and those should be allowed to come forward and bear the burden of showing the district court that they met the burden of special justification why they should not retain darts however the district court turned this exception into the rule and a rule that no one mandates needed to retain security guards and we submit that this was in clear contra diction to the clear rule of this court with all due respect counsel i think that that you may be confusing the court's discussion of the issue with what the court's holding was yes the court held that that the on me and gates created  were but i don't read the opinion as limiting the district court's discretion as to how to fashion an appropriate remedy for that mileage your honors we read the court's opinion clearly this court principle of affording reasonable access and the district court has attempted to meet back or uncivil whether it met it correctly is certainly open food for debate not be entitled i'd be interested in your in your views as to whether or not the district court's remedy really is really does the trick whether it doesn't afford reasonable access but that's a different issue than saying the district court was writing for the violation of constitutional rights very well your honor we submit that there is simply no precedent that allows the government to require an advocate to carry key to walk down a public public safety rationale for doing that all right but but now we've got to find a way to to modify got regime to accommodate first amendment rights the district court says i'll supply access by requiring the municipalities to provide geez why is that inadequate at least without some experience as to how it operates why is it on its face an adequate or less adequate than having to present to obtain that he one has to bring a federal lawsuit now the supreme court the stratton decision said that it's unconstitutional to force an advocate to go to town hall thank you are you having attained the key and the order to obtain the placement of guards which is the alternative remedy that you're seeking or eight you would have had to bring the walsall neither existed without the bringing of the lawsuit and you know we're we're interested here in the in the first amendment rights  the need to continue to update the beepers to administer the change in access costs now this is the government with all its resources saying this is a burdensome scene that the district or has done how much more as the burden being put upon the advocate who not only needs to deal with the screen in san juan but in all the other seven minutes will defendants here watch what is actually happening  resolution virtually to all the manned guards within the missile defense we still have problems we still call the police there is a problem with respect to the commonwealth police participation but judge help access a particular position there are multiple congregations english spanish chinese sign language trust to figure out a way to use the one he and venison want correctly posit so does that mean you that there's central group would give it to one congregation and then it would be up to the carnations to figure out how to use that one key among the various individuals who want to preach in a particular because they should so maybe they all have to show up at eight am or whatever time they pick and then do you have different congregations wanting he where the same days no judge there has been a measure of coordination for clearly that requirement eliminates spontaneity that the supreme court says upon an advocate which was the beauty of this court's decision in requiring onion gates to have guards it firmly protected well established free speech rights to travel to district court never held a hearing on the burdens attendant on the hearing from your own or the district court held what it called a final dispositional hearing in which it had evidence before the burdens would be we argued what we felt this court's opinion required and the district district court judge held that there's an access codes would be turned over now do you or do you not accept the this court's decision it did recognize that some urbanization is maybe very small perhaps one or two dozen homes or have very limited resources and something else would be required however as this court's opinion also recognized the average number of homes in these urban ization are well in excess of one hundred some have two or three hundred homes so those are functional equivalence of public streets that exist everywhere and with respect to our access to the public streets i turn this court's attention to the us we're sorry we cannot help you now that the commonwealth made representations to the district court made representations to this court that it would take all necessary measures to enforce this court's order and we submit that they have an obligation to the responsibility to enforce federal law within its jurisdiction now the state police is a very simple solution they can simply order their state police to assist to hold these witnesses but they fail to many of these are very very poor communities under extreme pressure the crime rate in puerto rico extraordinary and you're saying to the residents these communities you now have to have someone on twelve hour shifts every day at the gate so that the witnesses can come and although you haven't had the resources to do it before now your honor i turn the court's attention to the record with respect to how close  and what you want them to do they come to the gate they say to the guard why are you not letting travis would now there is no guard at this well the the high definition correct but with respect to the young man and if they could not hire a guard if they could not do virtual camera solution then the gates would be left open during daylight hours so the public streets in the underground or been ization would be the same as public streets everywhere else in the united states so you  calls for a human being to be at the gate to assist the police in their surveillance duties this court recognised and i think the commonwealth recognised that unmanned is not within the statute so if we talk about that  and the panel issued a decision and a decision on reconsideration municipalities understand that the this circuit through the panel at that point while reversing original decision and the april one on the ninth in fact that it was not fun finding that there had been constitutional violations establish the good stud or any of them is a pallies or any of the urban associations  we understand stood that and part of the problem was you have an ensure you issues before the court what was properly evidence before because there's been a lot of statements in the briefs and throughout this statement of counsel one one is that we understood that the district court needed to hold an evidentiary hearing and to find constitutional violations under section one hundred eighty three against a missile to and it's before it went to the remedial s at that point is sitting at the negotiating table with the plaintiffs really were not willing to consider what we understood to be treasonable options options that these communities could adopt that were not specifically said that mr pelly should have flexibility leeway to come up with great of solutions and that there shouldn't be a one size fits all solution based on that for example was spent a lot of time going community by community talking to them and finding out what were the specifics of that they did an action plan that they proposed to the court what's wrong with the court's order the court says that what we understand is the court rejected the possibility that a community be allowed to open their community for certain days and certain weeks what we think is implicit in the original panel discussion when they talked about in certain cases or maybe to be a guard on certain days and certain hours we think opening the gates on certain days is a functional equivalent of that and in fact there's not any fell through the guard there it is more protected first amendment speech and that that option was rejected by the district court and we believe it's a constitutionally viable option that we would ask that this court put its in perimeter and that that should be one of the options to the the motion that we filed requested the court we put four options any of which if if the association chose to adopt would resolve the issue of access we understood what we want to to propose a key to give a key to th witnesses to give a beeper to give an access control or to choose to allow the gates to be open on specific days because the problem we have is that if i could finish that this one statement does show you is that that's open twenty four hours a day to anyone and that provides constitutionally sufficient access if that if that rationale is found by the district court to be persuasive  he feels that that's sufficient to allow him to move forward relief in those communities without without going and going for it though i understand that there are other communities that that are not affected by this water and  one thing your honor we have i just it's my question do your clients object to that method for resolving the question of special just well that's what i was trying to get at your honor we understood if if the method that was except it was to give a key or a beeper or an access code that is your hope this witness have an ability to get in and preach there's no longer is a first amendment violation at that point we understood that the whole special justification really dropped out because there was no longer any ok i guess one of the some problem we have with this is that the special justifications it's that if you go into that what exactly entails and then this oh you stand on it one boy request it said these are some of the factors that we think we would consider in doing that with this satisfy and we really got no guidance on that and we're kind of between a rock and a hard place in that we have urban associations that have property interests in the axis control regime to put in place many associations that are not before the court in that they were not sued and yet the rim of the that has been applied potentially can affect or even take out the property rights for example and let me just in go rob oh there were two arban associations still these parties are not before the court and if if the misspell he takes their property away under standard there we're not sure we could be subject to suit from them for violating their due process right now and so are you here because you are trade sanctions example but that wasn't the special circumstances but there's just this uncertainty as to what would satisfy that is that troubles us so that's one of the all right but we are not here on a case of the district court irrationally sanctioning a municipality which has for example offered a key well actually your hon we originally understood the order and the order of the written order that came down after the hearing set to provide a means of access and the miss appellate he's came forward with keys for beepers they were then sanctioned because they didn't have a beeper and an access code and so there were sections when we thought we were in facial compliance with the order is written and several and there's been controversies at the gates with representatives of the associations saying that you're not protecting our interests and the problem is they're not before the court they have property and security rights and severance and they've asked to be heard f e m s to intervene riverside and  also asked because they understood their property rights were being impaired and the court has refused to allow them saying the municipality show act in their interest and we are content interest at times ok thank you thank you ons requiring that they not only turn over the key or the access code but they keep them calling and providing that if they don't do that that they will then indemnify the municipality for any officers yes your honor there is in april of two thousand and thirteen and april of two thousand and twelve the superintendent of police issued ministry borders officers are ignore the law and that time doesn't provide for any any of them also there's an issue about the authority to regulate your own or there's nothing in the record whatsoever oh i will take that on your briefs you've argued that well ok thank you this court well knows that the speech activity in play here is the lifeblood of the democracy and this court also well recognizes that puerto rico has a serious crime problem chum's witnesses understand that there are twenty six thousand jobs witnesses who live in puerto rico but we submit that when this court ordered admit urbanisation still retain guards that the court got the calculus right it balances the significant first amendment issues against the significant security issues of the puerto rico citizenry the special justification who we submit was crafted as a limited exception for a very small number of urbanisation is but in judge help piece view that has now become the rule for almost half of the organizations which we submit is  it as i understand with judge guilty is done with special justification he's ordered the inquiry into special justification and the decision as to whether special justification exists to be made by the municipalities you're helping your case by referring to your reading our decision you do help your case when you talk in terms of you're not getting affected re or you're not getting out for a film and your clients first and i'm not right so let me pick up on that your honor when we look at san juans position in front of this court when it says that it's burdensome for them the government to exercise their public function to ensure access to public streets it well illustrates the burden that's being put upon the advocate and we submit that there's been a shifting of responsibility in burden in this case the burden for the failures of their urbanization because you want fewer people to have to deal with is that what yes your honor those are state actors we we think the paradigm is that public access to public streets should be virtually unfettered as it is everywhere in the united states now with respect to the commonwealth this court did not dismiss the commonwealth they were proper parties to the case they've not made any showing as to why they should not be a party they've made representations to the district court and to this court that they would take all necessary measures to get the solicitor general in response to a letter saying can you please have your police help us never responded the way we heard council respond today yes the ministry of orders we apologize they're not being followed what they told us is in essence the police cannot help so we submit that they need to be restored to the case so that we can ensure their vibrant participation thank you thank you very much