my point was going to be that he has a duty that he swore an oath to protect to report to misconduct of public officials he believes in that duty that he took the air force academy and as he entered into public service for those years defending our country in june of you did not for the purpose of discussing the mayor's crap with them but this is taking positions on the right but when the when the agenda item came up and the mayor failed in his obligation that he had been ordered by the state ethics commission to do he changed his position of course he didn't want to just speak on the matter he wanted to point out that mare griffin had violated a direct order of the ethics commission grant to eat on or any other matter involving eat on which may come before the council and its stains from voting on the mat matter and to disclose the full nature and extent of this company's contract with the airport authority whenever the  council is considering the matter pertaining to the airport authority including appointment of trustees and its gains from voting on those matters so long as there is the potential the airport authority could take further action on his company's contract and this was just the direct his conduct and then he sees mr dinh a twelve days later and he's not he's going to look for an opportunity to castigate him publicly and humiliate him and call him a clown on on television is the kind of meeting at which comments from public normally are permitted to be named yes absolutely they have public comment not on on virtually every agenda item but the right there's one list the public reserved for making comments things you want to address and you know that they didn't get the snow off the streets here the day before yesterday and that's not on the agenda you can make any comment a public comment at the beginning the public comment period on any subject but you cannot make comment during that period on matters on the agenda item you have to wait for the agenda item to be called and then you have to make comments about items that are not subject to public i believe that there are some that occur that  speak was right after griffin stated i'm going to continue this matter of this evening's meeting because he had just been approached by the city attorney who have just prior that been approached by mr tonight and told her that mr griffin was out of line was not to be conducting this meeting or chairing this meeting concerning the airport matter she approached where in the constitution does it say you have a constitutional right to talk now rather than an hour later well the problem is the mayor is already out of line that's not even that's not even the point the point is that when he went to the city attorney and brought that to her attention to any told mary the mayor couldn't sit there and say i'd like to continue this to tonight his duty and obligation under the ethics commission or was to step back at attention and he's trying to point out the ethics commission ruling and saying mr mayor you were told not less than twelve days ago that these are the things that you're supposed to do when an airport matter comes before the council when you're not doing it but he doesn't get the same you that because  marriage fails him you're out of here somebody else work that clown out of here and the mayor had no business discussing airport matters at all before the council and he knew it he knew what he was doing any knew he was violating the ethics commission ruling he knew when he objected to me that he was violating his constitutional right to free speech and to confront him on the issue publicly and on television and griffin was not going to let the naked the better of him in front of the public and that's what this case comes down to  first amendment doesn't apply the first amendment doesn't apply to a citizen's right to complain in a public forum regarding officials misconduct then what good is the first amendment or course of respect to the right or of expression in a very unusual form form such a new dancing we're burning the flag and grotesque marxist you can devers just to name a few i seriously doubt that our founding fathers had intended for those things to be protected by speech but i'm certain that they were concerned about  you're probably in a better position to answer your question as to whether this was an item on which the public kind of right the public had a right comment on the item they can do that in the public experience of sitting through many of those meetings and they often jump around and jump from one place to another and then get back to where they need to be to get something done the fact that they don't immediately address that vote doesn't disturb me at all because tree quickly they could address that same vote on whether mr d n a could speak at a later point we never got the opportunity to get back on track there and with the city council this happens all the time they jump all over the place and then can come back to that point they were never given that opportunity because the mr cheney's conduct and that's essential is critical in this in this case we will never know you are one interpretation is your ruling plus the bar of participation in the next absolutely wrong in his interpretation he can preside he can't vote under the laws that were presented there and he is if he makes a proper closure when this was all pointed out to him he chose a different route doesn't present you f did more than was required by the ethics opinion by absentee games and if mr day had shown up i think it would be fair to state in the evening that the new residing chairperson probably could've you know he didn't have the on the floor and with my point i think it is a very reasonable time place and then a restriction again that would be speculation just as it would be speculation to assume he would have been excluded but for his destructive conduct would you agree that one of the reasons he was and i will state that it is not relevant because if a speaker must not have any adverse feelings against a person when they throw him out then probably most beakers could never be thrown out that can't be the standard that gee you dislike this person because of past things so therefore you are insulated and can never throw this person out even when they're disruptive to the point he has to be focused on is that you have to run a meeting there are lots of people on the means going all day and they're trying to get stuff done out in the audience they're trying to get the work accomplished and discussions like this have to be taken care of that's a very important interest of the government and to just say that a mayor because and this is just hypothetically because he may have had other dealings and not care for this person and suddenly that person is destructive oh gee we can't throw him out now because there's a clerical point before before i concluded mr scott had brought something to my attention yesterday afternoon that we weren't certain in this case versus the other when he had a discussion with mr becker about the videotape in that case well i think again as you were just going around on this i just believe that that is something that the mayor didn't have a right to do he didn't have a right to ask for the meaning to be continued he knew what the name was going to say he'd already been told in his ear by the city attorney what the na constitutional right i just see i think a commission ruling right right but then his at this point when a says i demand the right to speak and he says you demand nothing i will throw you out of here somebody throw that clown out of here that's what the constitution in the play because then i was going to point out and he knew it he knew what we're doing was going to point out to the public that this guy had violated again and ethics commission ruling this wasn't the first time this that happened and they had just been down at the ethics commission and on this event the ethics commission found the griffin was wrong and they reprimanded him for it but he knew what they were going to say and he tried to squelch that and he did he's pretty speech by throwing him out of that meeting in column a clown he knew what he was going to say and this is the willful conduct of a public official in violation of the first amendment and that's where the first amendment came into play in this case thank you