your honour's there is a situation where a person can go to a public podium at a government meeting and claim to be the president of the united states and accuse officials of talking from aliens and other outrageous statement that public body will quietly sit there and listen but when my client lieutenant colonel sam the navy an air force academy graduate and retired firefighter and bomber pilot who spent twenty six years of his career defending america and the freedoms that we hold true and who year after year lives up to his sworn duty and oath to defend the constitution like virtually no contemporary citizen in nevada criticizes that reno government he is the victim  retaliation including being thrown in jail delighted with the opportunity i believe that that could happen in that scenario but as you indicated in this case we don't see that mr it was disruptive and certainly and that he wasn't even out of line he was called out of the or things to that effect is a question of fact the jury has to decide whether or not he is assumptions and things that he did in regards to those assumptions were fair in light of the circumstances and everything that had transpired on that and i don't i don't think there's any other way to determine that i don't think it's fair for the for the court sitting back to make a determination if the actions of the public official were warranted i think that's what the constitution provides for  of course he had been seated in the audience quietly and he was specifically addressed and called out of the audience by mr hill he said mr denay mr de rose from his seat took two steps forward and said yes and stood there and then he was wrongfully accused of saying something derogatory about either the public comment being made the person at the podium or the public body that was seated in the front mr  right in reminding mr heller telling mr hill that he had made no such comment in regard to the person speaking or the public body he had made a quiet comment to the person seated next to him not to take up the paper that he  on the floor next to him because there was spit on it but the audio tape and the audio track of the video take clearly indicate that his comment wasn't even significant enough to be picked up by either of those recordings so in no way was this a destruction of any kind however hadn't even been heard by anyone else in the room is not improper for mr ney to remind somebody sitting next to him not to touch a piece of paper that he had spit on and as you are that then well at that point mr delay was ordered by mr hill to sit down and the videotape shows that within twenty seconds of that directive being given by mr hill mr de lay was seated in his chair again and the videotape also shows that at the time he was removed from the meeting he was seated in his chair and was grabbed and forcefully removed from his chair by two armed police officers he followed the directive to sit sit in the chair the argument had  somewhat finished although it was continuing and at that point because mr hill refused to concede that he was wrong in his accusation of mr d n a that was the only point that mr de wish to make is that he had been wrongfully accused in public on television by a public official which i think he had a right to do so but i believe that you know in his anger and animosity towards mr de name because this isn't our first encounter he's there every every meeting but he was by virtue of relevance duration tone or manner and i think this is a very important case because the first amendment cases in the context of public meetings are dealt with differently than they are in the context of employment or other that what created the disorder and again looking at this only from the side of the point i understood and that's why i think you have to just completely take the stuff out of it and look at it objectively and ask one simple question you know did it appear that he was creating speech during that little argument with the with the case then became was he was engaged in protected first amendment speech before and that that was the motivation for this action happening after it really wasn't presented as a case that he had the right and the first amendment  course of the public meeting as it was really loud and yelling and when chairman hill heard the comment against it on it his interpretation was that he's commenting upon something that the speaker is saying who's right you know within a matter of feet from him and  whether that's right or wrong no one will ever know but what you have to do is just look at it and ask the question of whether or not it was reasonable for him to believe that this was a distraction to the pump meaning and then from that point the things just seen it is because the answer screw over to take him out and he says you're going to have to drag me out of here so then he steps down as a means of making their job much more difficult to get him out of there when he's saying be seated with chairman hill's telling him to be seen if he's really telling him to stop the destruction there's no doubt about that the final point that i want to make and this goes back to the question before about whether or not qualified immunity fits into this deal and i think the brewster case is very very good about describing the thought process that you have to go through and we as lawyers have to go through it's about a four step process in determining whether or not the speech is constitutionally protected you have to balance then the interest of the government against the rights of the speaker and then you very good at showing that we cannot you know force of one just a member that's not trained clearly is not a war not trained in alive to make these snap decisions in a matter of seconds and to take into account you know the hundreds of cases that have defined what first amendment protected speech is and in those contexts you just cannot say in the matter of law that he knew at that moment that it was clearly established that what mr donate was doing was in violation of the constitution i think it's halfway through it when he was ordered  decisions at that point in time who knows he may have just sat down on his own the court this court has made it very clear that you have to give these guys some deference they don't have a crystal ball determine what's going to happen if he sat down didn't he have a right to stay there and then was quiet absolutely but what was of course not but that's not the context in which this occurs you've got to take it in the context of what he had done in front of that public body before standing up there chairing it up spitting on it these were the type of antics that he had and frequently from the audience when other people were talking he would have two minutes mr hill interrupted this meeting he called in a out of the audience he instigated this confrontation that was taking place in this so called disruption everything was the genesis was mr right to say what he did this mr didn't they tried to correct him and he wasn't going to be allowed to correct the misconception had been placed in the minds of the public in that board by mr hill that he had made an incorrect statement just i think i think he has a right to an apology by a public official castigated him on public television for something that he didn't do first amendment right to receive an apology i believe in the context of this case you absolutely does embarrassed him in front of everybody and he should recognize that he was wrong and not show the speech of other citizens who were might wish to speak out everyone in that room is probably a shaking in their boots to speak out on anything at that point where  on that when we're talking about the heat of the moment the chairman an exercise in judgment call millions in cooley he wasn't there alone he had an attorney sitting right it is elbow i mean if he was worried about whether his conduct was appropriate or inappropriate he certainly could