and specifically whether these circumstances fall under the spell seventy year old rule of united mine workers that private parties right content proceeding to compensatory relief is quote dependent on the outcome of the basic controversy devers position is that it does fall under this rule and that when the district court  solved the preliminary injunction thereby finding that in the circumstances at its initial determination on the form status of the courthouse plaza was in error that or this city did change its position dramatically consistently the city held that the former status of the plaza was to be designated by denver not that it was a traditional public forum but that it was a public forum designated as such by denver and what did you hold what was in the stipulation i thought the stipulation was exactly to the effect that it was the traditional public absolutely not your honor that is the point of confusion throughout this case because places so we got that wrong in our prior opinion  nowhere ok stipulation that it was never ever a physician that it was a treaty and frankly the way traditional public forums work it wouldn't matter if denver stipulated to whether it was traditional enough for additional public forums  binding on the court as a question florida parties can stipulate to legal answers and as i believe this this court said in the first very low appeal you can't simply take denver's is clear was that the parties remained in functionally the same position as they were at the perimeter junction and that the stick he changed position was entirely perspective that is even though the memorandum of did throughout the litigation the court and the parties but particularly the district court noted that the question of who spoke for the plaza as it was put of which authority governed if the if the two parties were speaking in had different opinions on the legal status of the former status of the plaza which would govern and the district court throughout the proceedings and again in a request for a status report just before trial essentially asked who is going to publish for me how do i make this determination parties tell me if we need to go to sea court and make this determination about who about who spoke for the party the result of the results was that the state and the city got together and resolve the question and filed the answer with the court your honor we have thought and we now agree that we both have we both have authority and were very few jointly manage the court house by the based on this this perspective memorandum of understanding it's going to set up a joint committee discuss these issues and we are no longer we are no longer at odds if there is any doubt about the forms that whether the form has been make that clear and avoid any confusion the parties denver and the state jointly managing the courthouse plaza now under their joint authority said here's our intent going forward unless you tell us this is a traditional public forum in which case it is what it is categorically then we are going to remove the designated public form status well as those trust what the question matter because the district court specifically said i do not need to consider denver's position in this order said i've come to the conclusion that i confused about their status we might have a separate sovereign if denver was still in the case that well first back up a few steps remember that just before trial another the court issued another order saying i see this new  and this perspective intent party stop me just ever need to be in the case and then responded no we don't need to be in the case because the categorical analysis is going to be what it is regardless of what we say in the future the p designate a status is state filed a brief saying essentially the same thing it's going to change how we argue the case and place all the time so no party thought that denver should be in the case district took that discharge the order to show cause and decided the case without regard to the circumstance the changed circumstances reflected in the interview so circumstances did change they did not affect the ultimate decision on the form status of the plaza well into the second judicial district as part of that in most use when denver status changed so that its status and so how could it not be part of the you know the line about oh i don't want to be a concern by denver well even if it's just concern about the second judicial district it's a concern about the second judicial district because of their relationship with the city of denver now it exists now so i mean i don't see why the change the joining of the t analysis that forth by this court and the spin court which is the bulk of its legal analysis and in the conclusions of law and the character of the physical characteristics of the form neither of those changed at all throughout th two it doesn't affect the public for status in fact as a corporatist there is no basis for treating the restricted areas anything but a nonpublic for so on that you key determinations it made to grant the look at our accomplice connor decision which is a consent case is speaks for the notion of having to have i think what it describes the specific unavoidable consequences related to a finding of consent and it seems to me that if so the logic would be that there is a contempt of finding of liability there is a determination there will be contempt sanctions consensus or sanction but no number is put on that so how is that specific will specific an unavoidable consequences when you look at our cases that say that unless you turn that determination of attorney fees into a number it in itself is interlocutory so the logic would be you've got a finding of contempt both of them all contempt cases don't seem to support the position that we do have jurisdiction i'll shut up please tell me why i'm wrong i think the reason is is america sorta and the  review the finding of contempt and it has nothing to do with the amount of the senate general to be opposed and it's beginning to tells us just draw that straight line it don't worry about whether the damages are merits or the shifting issues in a way that would significantly undermine the rule of law first senator asked this court holds that if an individual or entity violates a court order that has been correctly entered at the time that it was entered later change to the requirement as it saw for denver and it's interesting to education police officers he certainly the court certainly have that educate is that part of its prior ruling your honor i think the court was using that term educate equally with inform later on in the order the court talked about informing denver fail to inform and educate the same as informing or giving notice i think so you could you could post this is you know big print this is a revised plaza order and noticed the parts that are red lined out those no longer apply that's a notice that's correct your honor would that be enough here that would be enough here but that didn't happen and the evidence shows that it didn't have but the district court spoken language of education and that seems to be to be a lot more intricate classes you know i don't dispute that the initial court used educated at one point in its order but also use informant the end of its order when it went into specifically why it was holding denver in contempt and it was shown through the evidence the denver didn't even inform its officers in district six of the positive order there was a probable cause statement written by a new trainee someone who had just gone through the training at denver and you had not been informed of the plaza order an officer named chase medallists corporal waldock one of the higher ranking officials at district six he testified unequivocally that he had never been informed of the closet   notice your honor on page fifteen of of the of the of the order what's what do we do with the change the situation as far as whether or not the plenary injunction still stands that is the district court either default or reversed its ruling in april and then in may has this contempt proceeding and issues of after that attends circuit had heard arguments on needed some rain junction or what do you do with the argument that was just made by posing counsel that essentially denver's position was irrelevant to the district question of whether the system whether the dissolved ng has the order was actually declaring that order the implementor injunction erroneous and if it was declared erroneous that goes back to the rule that's being added catered for which is that you can't be held in contempt of an invalid order and so that's why it is significant as to whether denver's change of position really matter because if it didn't and the court is saying now doing this now this i find that in fact what i did before was a wrong is irrespective of what the inverse or did then that's a problem i don't think so your honor because i think the standard for a plumber injunction is different than the standard for a permanent injunction number one there are multiple earlier determination was erroneous then that would cause the order to be invalid so do you accept and save a minute to talk to me about jurisdiction d so much time in its final order talking about denver nonparty to the case someone who is if they had no significance the case all why would they take up pages and pages of visual resources there were different universe of facts before the court when it seems to me you have a finding of live bill of the that doesn't have an attachment to it it is not concrete and specific our terminology in court o'connor and we talked about this in gonzales both say the same thing that if all you get is a you're in contempt period and you don't do anything to attach to that that is in a walk story that is not fine i think your honor we cited one case in our briefing on this issue and it's a high construction company case and it talks about to enjoin ordinances from the books and they and then still the court said that wasn't enough that new york city almost had strict liability to make sure that that these two organisers were enjoined it unconstitutional and should be enforced and it imputed that to the officers agents of new york and employees of new york city metro southern district of new york case obviously it's not binding authority but i think it's