was not proper because a jury could find that mr griffin had objected today in order to prevent d n a from expressing expressing views hostile to griffon if that was the panel decision then why does the district court then grant qualified immunity to griffon on reading and that's removing from the jurist consideration griffin's personal conduct there was no bad guy left for the jury to have a case against they only left the official capacity of mr griffin and the city of reno which is not what was what was the practical difference in terms of what the jury was asked to decide about mr grafton from taking away his individual capacity and leaving him official capacity to actual difference that makes what the jury was asked to decide well i think i can only speculate in the minds of the jurors on that is if they're looking at only city officials and the city entity as a defendant they might not feel inclined to grant an award against the city or its official mayor for that type of conduct so i'm only that would be speculating that point they might want to go after griffin as an individual and  he was out of line but that was removed from their previous review was the legal question the jury was asked to decide changed as a result of the change from focus on individual capacity the problem we have in reno is that there's very few people that are willing to stand up and fight for first amendment rights to speak freely and openly in public meetings as the record shows mr day as there is a regular visitor to the city council meetings there and he speaks on public issues but so he is personally very aware of what this what the conduct of an individual is required in council meetings but there are people that go to council meetings sometimes it's become very bizarre subjects like being abducted by aliens or that there is a plot by the president of the cia to assassinate them and what the council in america do with those people is they just sit there and look at their notes and read the next agenda item and they don't pay attention to him they don't interact with him they just wait for three minutes and they excuse them but they always go after mr denay because he's always on point he has something to say of importance and in this case you say they always go after mentioning what do you mean when you say that well there's always there always seems to be a regular dialogue between the mare when mr de is speaking about a public issues they seem to get into it on a regular basis i shouldn't say every time he speaks but on a regular basis mr de lay is challenged on things that he speaks at the podium which is different he's treated differently than a lot of the speakers are there and of course he has regular appearances probably don't help matters with his relationship with the city council  griffen resulted in an ethics commission ruling that the former american conflicts of interest when dealing with airport matters prove pivotal to him from speaking on the airport business at the counsel table and this is the very issue as you know gets to speak today on this on this matter and that was out of line too because that's that's against the normal practice isn't in reno you put in a card and a request to speak you're allowed to speak but mary decides to have an impromptu vote on whether or not the name is going to speak and  continue this to a later time without allowing the need to speak and they were in the process of taking a vote on whether he should be allowed to speak and then they said i demand the right to speak he was there he had waited for several hours for his opportunity to ejection was proper well i think that's that's part of the issue but being denied the right to speak on a public issue was part and parcel of the whole thing i mean the mayor had just recently just in just a few an official capacity thing then you then you automatically get qualified immunity i think that's one of the problems we were seeing here that's the argument from the city he's exactly as official capacity so therefore grant the individual qualified immunity and i see my time going to stop i wonder if i c clearly destructive person from the meeting regardless of what made it different subject of intent was that was that law was not clearly decided at that time secondly has been raised by the prior argument i regard as to whether that issue was correctly determined the jury decided in this case that there was no first amendment violation that mayor goodman had removed the plaintiff because of his destructive behavior and not because of any first amendment violation in intention with respect to whether the immunity is properly granted the answer under the ninth circuit precedent at the time back in june one thousand nine hundred nine when this occurred was that a reasonable person would not have known that subjective intent of the active party in their grief and here was particularly relevant and wipers in our walk the plan is to remove the least three different times from city council meetings the last one occurred when one of the plaintiffs was speaking about a client a legal matter involving a city official and this court upheld the finding there was no constitutional violation and so i quote four sixty nine felt third twelve twenty one and that case this court held that before november of two thousand and six the law was not yet clearly established as to whether police action could be taken regardless of a wrongful retaliatory intent meeting and the question as shown as scuse me as the court clarified and screw intent of the actor as far as the status of the law that was not established as being a necessarily relevant would have been at issue for the jury the same jury instruction would have been given the jury was already instructed that mary griffin was a policymaker the exact same instruction instruction eleven and instructions seven would have been given to the jury even if mer and was still in the case how much if anything was that you really told about the practical significance of the difference between an individual capacity and official capacity suit against mr griffin there's nothing in the jury instructions that shows that the to the jury under submission is that the jury might have been more reluctant to award something if they thought the damages were going to be paid by the city rather than being paid by mr an individual and the jury was not informed as to who would be responsible for the payment of any damages that might be assessed as nothing in the evidence or certainly nothing in the jury instructions that fact it's simply right here's a question presented on a jury instruction eleven do you find that he was that the the same question would have been presented so basically we would ask that you find the qualified immunity was properly granted for the reasons i stated or the alternate of basis is the same legal question what is presented there would not have been any different i think the problem here is the american was discussing an airport matter when he objected to nay he should have been at the table he should have been deciding if they may have the right to speak on an airport issue griffin was the one who had no right to speak on airport matters he should have been controlling the meeting and taken a vote on whether they had a right to speak on the issue of the jury did determine whether the money would come from i think it's without question that everyone could assume the money would come from public coffers there was no hint that it would be paid by anybody else because there was no defendant other than a public defendant and the public entity before the jury i think the jury should have been instructed differently and of course we believe that the individual th