start was the date that he had to start his case against the district for fault for his violation of his first amendment rights council he initiated this action on march twenty eighth two thousand and sixteen is that correct yes i'm sorry i  was thinking of her the other case ok and if that's true then any any action filed before march twenty eighth two thousand and fourteen would be time are right yes that this in the decision for this period of time and every day that he's violated in the cases of wallace versus kato and heck first time for us supreme court case five twelve us four seventy seven and we're all cases in which they very clearly said that in cases involving false that the commencement date of the claim starts when you get released so his speech was imprisoned basically the same rules should apply here there's a cases in the ninth circuit that you do prescribe what it can when there's continuing tort nuisance cases that are continuing in nature for example that the cause of action continues during the time the nuisance is continuing and certainly this case is analogous i cannot find any cases that suggested that when there is a continuing tort that when the action is continuing against him that statue of limitations and you had an appellate decision after so how do you say it is the continuing wrong the wrong was allegedly starting the lawsuit and then occurred outside this to say the order in the court denied that well that's that's on the merits that doesn't say when it occurred in other words if it was challenge a ball even if unsuccessfully i mean the very fact that you challenged it demonstrates that it was a one time occurrence the issuance of the order his claim wasn't complete until he got the order lifting the order he how would he have to teach could prove that it was a wrongful gag order once he got relief from the court of appeals his occurs that is subject to challenge at the time them it and it may have continuing affects just life and judgment has a continuing effect source anything else to us but i don't understand why lack of success makes the time go longer this is the same as it is a false imprisonment case what if a gentleman is being water tortured every day he's tortured is another offense every day his speech has been gagged is another affair yes except that we quibble want really here is someone here you're using a gentleman should somebody shot in the injury is of singular injury if he shoots him every day that's not the same thing and this is you can use the singular injury example against a continuing injury that goes on and on and on i understand your position is actually exceeded your time but you may have a minute for about all  police may please the court beginning after the appellant left office in two thousand and nine the district tried to recover e mails that he had taken that is the subject of the so called e mail lawsuit eventually in two thousand and eleven the district filed an inductive order seeking return of those e mails now that injunction that that request for an injunction was denied but the court did order that he could not  publicly disclose the e mails that's the so called gag order a stencil believe the retaliatory act is the act of the district asking the court for  in injunction that prevented mr mitchell from disclosing those e mails publicly that that injunction was sought in two thousand and eleven the argument here is that  his claim is timely because the injunction wasn't lifted until two thousand and fourteen but the ruling retaliate claim and any section one thousand and three claim is if the the claim a cruise with a retaliatory act as long as the writ retaliatory act is separately actionable on its own disregarding issues of immunity if the district sided injunction seeking to prevent mr mitchell from releasing the e mails publicly that is an end if that is can form the basis of a retaliate claim the claim accrued whenever  the district sought the injunction the district didn't issue the court order the the so called gag order was it affects because of a court order because because if the seeking the injunction is can be the basis of a retaliation claim that claim is outside of the statute of limitations and it doesn't matter and this is the subject of supreme court decision for example morgan versus amtrak even if that alleged retaliatory act is related to other retaliatory acts that are within the statute of limitations it's still time barred the only time where  retaliatory act is not time barred where the continuing violations theory can apply is is for example in a hostile work environment claim where the hostile work environment by definition cannot consist of a single act be has to consist of the aggregate of either discriminatory or a teller atory acts in that circumstance as long as you have one act that is within the limitations period that you are alleging comprises the hostile work environment then the other acts that are outside the limitations period can be used to support the retaliation claim are i'm sorry the hostile environment claim but again that's not what we have here we have one alleged discrete retaliatory act the a crude in two thousand and eleven with a sensibly that the district seeking to prevent mr mitchell from releasing those emails publicly if that is sufficient to to maintain a retaliation claim then that then it's outside of the statute of limitations and it doesn't matter that it's related to any of the other alleged retaliatory acts that mr mitchell as has based his other retaliation claims  on in addition to the time issues the district court also decided to dismiss to complain on the grounds of nor pennington immunity which we've talked about earlier we have the  only timely the only claims of retaliation that are within the limitations appear there pled are the district act of seeking a fee petition for access successful a defense of an election challenge that sham and that the allegations in the complaint otherwise were totally conclus you thank you council you may have one minute for a bottle thank you me i ran for to the second claim for relief that involved the fifty four thousand dollar attorney feeling claimed by the by the district the mr mitchell filed an election challenge it was valid justifiable and should have been pretty should have prevailed the court didn't follow the law the court i'm not sure what the reasons were but he had a valid claim the district had no right to participate in the election challenge the supreme court of oregon has made that ruling already that districts do not have the standing to participate in election challenge only the participants in the election can be involved in an election challenge case they intervened unlawfully they were unlawfully granted intervention status by the trial court and then they claim they had no interest in litigation yet they were they were supporting the candidate said that they would prevailed on the election if my claim had been prevailed in these illegal voters were were denied the vote they would have to do a revote and those members were not properly seated on the board it was a valid dispute that my client made there was no justifiable defense to it the contest these didn't appear in the case and the case was shamming frivolous when was your client's application denied l well within the two your limitation and what they're claiming was that the that they think that they filed the claim for attorney fees in the in the election challenge lawsuit when they were wrong wrongfully allowed to be interveners that that was the date that he should have sued  he didn't but they didn't have a judgment yet so he couldn't sue them for that until they got one he didn't think they would get one they want a proper party they didn't have standing how do you give people standing money when they're not a participant in the lawsuit they were like a friend of the court that's basically and friends of the court don't get