this invaded the province of the jury to determine the questions of fact i think it's a question of fact of whether or not in a was disruptive at the airport board it's not that not a question of law although it strongly argued by the by the defendant that that that if he was he was disruptive and could be removed but if his removal was based upon the retaliation for his prior comments then the  disruptive but now we have to make a decision whether or not he was being removed because of what he said or because of whether or not he was disruptive and i think the question should have banned was he disruptive and i thought for remov he said that he was he thought he was saying a rude comment about the person at the podium and that's what he was chastising for and then they got into this argument with and they said i wasn't talking about the person at the podium i was talking  don't pick up my piece of paper because that was spent on it and then so there was this argument i guess that's the second disruption or there is a disruption because they're arguing they just didn't resolve that issue at that point  not that that's all yes there's no question mr hill's stated that he was acting today because he wasn't going to he wasn't going to resolve that right here and now he's i'm not going to have this argument with you here during this meeting so you go sit down and you shut up or you get out and he says i'm not going to leave because he wanted an apology for being called out of his chair and being humiliated in front of everyone happened but actually what he should have done more appropriately when there's noise in the meeting what the chair usually does the raps the gavel he says something to the effect of can we have quiet please or something to that effect if there's noise in the audience he should say can we have quiet please but he about the nice comments at the podium when he says you're acting as a czar when you introduce these new rules here the jury was there to determine whether or not bill had violated today's rights on that day and whether he was instructed day whether he hill had retaliated against d n a for his speech on that day why was three and see a montage of videos from several other days the only purpose was to point to prejudice the plant if the jury saw the day he was being simply sent out of the meeting before for the argument or destruction they probably thought well what's the big deal why we even here why is there a trial but that was the issue of the damages they don't know what happened overlap the prejudice of bringing in all these videos of other days that when he had arguments with hill and that you know with their yelling at each other back and forth on these other days that were not relevant to this day in question the jury is just an idiot you know he doesn't deserve anything so therefore they go zero liability on that if we exclude those other videos and we stay on the one day where the not fundamental rights were violated on that day then the jury can the issue of liability and you're right if we if we don't have liability the damage this is is moot but what we got to have a fair shot a liability and not be prejudiced as far as you know the jury is concerned i'm kind of confused on the clock that the clerk's office in its wisdom and mysterious ways give you ten minutes side on the first case and twenty minutes on the second i think twenty minutes is more than you probably need although take as much as you that the nays destructive comments came like clockwork you know he does this on a regular basis that's their argument so once again they just want to prejudice the jury as to his conduct on other occasions not that particular occasion which is the only reason we were there he also there are obviously three issues on appeal in this case the first one is whether or not the district court committed reversible error when he ruled as a matter of law that mr than his conduct would justify his removal so long as that removal was was not motivated by his prior speech second issue is whether or not the district judge committed reversible error when it precludes the plaintiff from offering evidence about the subsequent arrest and prosecution and finally the third clear here is that the court committed error when it allowed the evidence of the prior interactions between mr today and mr hill before i address these legal issues i want to talk about a few critical facts that i think are very important to your determination here  today as was pointed out in the brief mr de name was someone who was there very frequently in fact had been to every single airport authority meeting since one thousand nine hundred forty three really admitted at trial that his goal was to get into the guinness book of world records for having spoken it's order granting summary judgment made repeated derogatory personal comments about the board members and that he was extremely his condemnation for the america or the airport authority board members without any consequence whatsoever nothing happened to mr today during the period of time that he was making these really derogatory comments it's only once he returned to the audience and spoke out of turn that anything any action was actually taken against him comment podium he also tore off and actually spit upon these rules of decorum that he felt had been improperly promulgated by the chairman mr hill and spit on again he was that that mr dinh a very frequently came in there was very derogatory towards the board members and i'm not one occasion was any action ever taken against him he was always free to go ahead and speak in any way he wanted during that public comment portion was over he would go to the audience and then he would attempt to heckle and interrupt other speakers who came before the board and in those situations then the videotape revealed to us that he was immediately stopped when he did that and that's what happened from completed his public comment i have returned to the audience there was another member from the air port authority staff that had gotten up to speak during the course of that meeting and that individual was speaking on the question of whether or not the airport authority was properly involved in an eminent domain proceeding to take certain properties around the airport and this was an issue that was very pure and dear to mr jimmy's heart record reflects and this is in a district court he talked about how he felt that they were stealing the land of these people hill believe that what mr de lay was doing was was again commenting in a negative way out of order about the comment that had been made by the by the airport authority staff member and so what mr hill does he said he did he called mr de nice name and what he said to him was that you make a comment that was unacceptable and it won't occur again or you're going to be checked in from the boardroom so then mr de nathan jumps up and his loud and aggressive manner says well what did i say mr hill says you said spit on it and it's not going to occur again whether mr to name goes on this tirade demanding that he issue an apology that meant that he was wrong mr hill simply says be seated and he tells him three times to be seated he warns them if you're not see that you're going on the jury instruction because that all that information been provided in the motion for summary judgment that he had previously granted because we have this videotape of exactly what happened we filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the prior can't vs santa monica decision and it's the district court to determine as a matter of law that mr nader was a disruption to the meeting and because he was  noted that he had been repeatedly warned and that he ordered those warnings and it was only when he ignored those warnings was he removed from the meeting this adult this court reversed that summary judgment finding that the really the issue of whether or not he was a distraction or not was immaterial because this was a quote unquote retaliation claim and which the issue was whether or not sherman field was motivated in his he jackson of mr today because of mr names prior comment issue of whether there was a disruption and you know whether fact there was a destruction because in its decision the panel this court didn't say whether or not he was a disruption or not it's said that the issue is really kind of immaterial because the real issue is what was the motivation of mr hill at the moment that he was removed from the from the board room so  as the jackson was not for an improper purpose that is in retaliation for the statement that mr today said which were protected statements earlier in the meeting and this court in its prior decision had found that mr  challenge and they focus on one sentence in the decision or in the instruction but you have to look at what judge mckibben did as far as instructing the jury as a whole because you have to look at the entire instruction and he gave both sides of this dispute i'm just going to rea to retaliate against him for speaking out during the public comment portion of the meeting in opposition to the rules being proposed to regulate public comment if he'll get it ejected today for that reason then the injection was viewpoint discrimination and it was impermissible under the first amendment search however but then it was rejected because he was disrupting the meeting after he made this public comment if this was hill's motivation for rejecting today then there was no viewpoint discrimination and rejection was permissible under the first amendment the next behavior in confronting you to present evidence of the arrest and prosecution i'm going to have to tell this jury that they arrest and prosecution was one hundred percent lawful and he says quite frankly i think that's going to be more harmful to you an opportunity calling and present evidence about an arrest and prosecution when he lost on that plane how could that possibly be relevant when those claims were gone and i think judgment given was absolutely correct in that and if he wasn't correct he actually benefited the plaint alleged misconduct of the defendants is arrest as opposed to merely removal from the room it's a purely objective test the state of mind of the arresting officer is totally immaterial and so he was aware that if those claims went forward that they were going to lose on this objective test and therefore you know that he was going to be an easy target how in the world can can that defendant be held responsible for having removed him from the building when they're not responsible for him having been arrested so this was a very wise thing to do finally this issue about the showing of the other videotape of the other events judge mckibben i think properly ruled that it would be when the so issue in this concluded and we made the argument this evidence is offered for multiple reasons first off it's offered to show that don't there were other instances where mr de lay was far more offensive to chairman hill and chairman hill was polite he never interrupted him he never point being is that i think judge mckibben was absolutely correct when he allowed that other evidence he gave very detailed cautionary instructions as to the purpose and the sole purpose for that evidence and i think it would be impossible to say that that he abused his discretion ok thank you very briefly there's no way than ace whisper can even be heard on the audiotape can be destructive as a matter of law so to say that he was destructive of the meeting as a matter of law was in a full not hearing and on the audio tape is very different seated in his chair when the officers physically pull him out of his chair and remove him from the meeting so their argument that he refused to comply with the directive is absolutely immaterial because he was se his chair when he was taken from the meeting you know that being the case i don't think it was appropriate for the district court to find as a matter of law that he was instructed he was back in his chair he should have moved on with the meeting but instead he wanted to make sure that he showed that he was the boss he's in charge and he's going to go forward with this he actually bringing these armed officers forward and drag him out of the meeting in front of everybody on television and by the way they no longer videotape