six twenty two i believe it came out in may we filed a supplemental already letter in that case your honor and now the definition of a true threat is the statement by which the speaker means to communicate the speaker's intention to commit is how do you get around the law in the cases and the finality of the previous decision all right you've read the decisions you know what each of us thought you know that my view was that is required of the case and the majority view of the bank was to the contrary it looks like the young backcourt decided everything except for remembering the punitive and how can we get they just pointing were not entitle to when unfortunately for your side they won and got their victory affirmed on appeal before shriver came down and what i'm wondering is how do came down but while this case was still pending your honor and even if you want also part of this case was the voting part of this case but the question is whether there's a final judgment in this case there isn't as plain a sick knowledge even if there were a final judgment the went back to the district court your honor the district court even under the law of the mandate had and could have exercise discretion and looking at matters that we presented back on this intervening law i think not words given the expressed limited mandate you want to but at least for me i want to hear you on the internet we remained in o of the well the there is some confusion here of what the jury did but as far as how much they punish these people whether they were rocketeers it and that added to the amount of punitive damages but what i'm saying is that in the light of the looked back to his findings on the injunction he needed to show how the harms that he was pointing to the past x hours a replicate the true threats in this case how they are not dissimilar  how the same sort of activities what he did was he just pointed back to a laundry list the finding some of those protected activities for example these people started to titian's advancing the view that people who had killed a fortune should be acquitted or that they attended controversial banquets or that they had been involved in citizens none of those activities are similar to the threats here the only thing he points to is just as laundry list terrorist activities that are not specific to what they were found guilty of here the when he's looking at the represents a billet here you know the what is the presumption is that compensatory damages beyond the academic exercise he has a show that they deserve to be punished beyond compensatory damages which made the defendants whole these anythings as the plaintiffs argue about you know future harms and all these other things that w never presented as a claim but while that was not even something the judge even considered here it's life that these people do that is similar to the current practice and there's nothing in the record to support anything like that for example  damages because he didn't want to interfere with the robust debate well if you want to talk about this notice to our clients of what they can expect if they violate space there's no notice that you can be hit with one hundred eight point five million dollars punished and deterred more than five hundred thousand dollars more than a lifetime injunction which if they violate they are facing criminal penalties or other penalties of the court there's a deterrence right there showing that they have been replicated the same type of conduct which they haven't all that's being point to is other activities that they've been involved with which is not the similar type of the activity involved here of having a poster that w told to them by the by courts just the format of this case the threat of being involved with names on a website in conjunction with the poster that no one no involvement with the strikeouts that was done by another person so looking at the facts as we know one the for getting close to you know unconstitutional aspect or at least in the single digits here how the district judge lined this up for saying ok we take the aggregate amount of compensatory damages and we'll compare it against the that already lined this up the ratios are astronomical well i take it in your view i don't know where you want to know what you really want to start putting that aside your fallback position wh for the punitive damages because scheidler plainly makes the recall warning appropriate it may be that the defendants are stuck with the rico award anyway because our mandate the point where i suspect it's wrong to award punitive damages on and ward on a compensatory amount that's contrary to law even if it is final so when we have to kind of community service in order to cut out the question about whether it should be based on me and the effect on the defendants or the effect on the plaintiffs in terms of ratio in the  the supreme court said that i think was utah in that case that the utah supreme court at their id process to the defendants the supreme court said that the court intended to punish and deter the defendant and the constitutional issue that brings us before this court is a defendant's to process right so one must look at i would submit from the defendant's perspective the defendant due process rights in terms of the award that's attendant has been hitless and when you have a joint and several compensatory damages awarded the law is clear that each defendant is one hundred percent liable for the compensatory damages so when looking at the steady nine thousand dollars we can say that but i don't see the logic of that the jury foreman foreman and did damage to d foreman and this to foreman has five hundred twenty six thousand dollars in assets and i obtain five hundred twenty seven six thousand dollars and i cannot obtain compensatory damages again it's up to the defendants argue contribution from one another i don't see what the point can sue each other for contribution or indemnity in order to make their shares come out fair but that's not the plaintiff's problem so if one defendant gets stuck one defendant happens to win the lottery pays the whole hundred million dollars he can sue all the other defendants were there proper shares under joint several liability but i don't see what that has to do with the allocation should be i think when we're looking at the ratio now i can see we're joined several has to do with it it seems to me that you still have to figure out some way around state farm and i thought it was really well your way around that except to talk about state farm insurance company did to other people are when the ratio announces under state on your honor was asked for the court and it's an important point i'd like to get to to look at the harm to the plaintiffs and state several nights circuit cases it wasn't just exxon it was also means where we said that the units had to be based on the harm to the corporation that sued not the individual drivers who didn't sue they might be able to bring their own  caused and they were specifically instructed while to the times that they could not find any liability based upon the actions of others that was in the incitement instruction so there's no question in this case that the jury did not deterrence and punishment when someone is a repeat offender deterrence and punishment comes into play to ensure that the action doesn't continue might might my colleagues on the other still i'd argue that the injunction is enough that on the face just over jury instructions that if i recall it right basically told the jury you don't have to find that these defendants actually intended to put the plaintiffs in here you just have to find that a defendant would reasonably have known that plaintiffs would be in fear and we saw in our own bach that that's right and then violence to a particular individual or group of individuals and then they use the phrase quote with the intent of placing the victim in fear close quote now it may be that your award is settled by the mandate so we don't take another look at it because to virginia v black you compensatory award but i'm wondering about whether we can approve punitive that are believed on a has to be proportionate to just trying to the jury said that the defendants were had different levels of culpability and i think also you need to consider in the ratio analysis it's not five twenty six it's much higher than that we have no economic five thousand into playing this is for example with of mr foreman if you look at his ratio with james to do haul i believe it's one to two thousand that's why they want to reel everything in with regard to other sort of ism the posters were republican to editorials and not thirty forty fifty times and this is their so called first of facts so it's not as though they keep repeating