my client made that led to his being charged tried and convicted by his union my client saw three of his union brothers  continuation hall and gauged in corrupt activity in the form of coast pay rolling or submitting fraudulent payroll records to contractor that they were working for this was directed at this activity was directed by the vice president of my client's local your honor the following is taken directly from the trial transcript of the union trial where my client was convicted for making the following statements and what mr gardner said barger said trial what what he said to mr meyer his union brother was if that's the kind of people we want to have representing us in our union then i probably don't want his union engaged in this is the speech your honour's that got him charged tried and convicted by the defendants is saying in essence our union should not be doing  this our union should be better than this our union should not be engaged in this activity our union should be honest and ethical you know this speech your honour's clearly relates to a matter of concern to the union membership as a whole and my client's my client your honour's was entitled to engage in this speech was entitled was entitled to make these statements to his union brothers about his union without fear of reprisal now that this court has held in the knox county local case that the elem r b a provides for  or requires a broader reading and broader reading in quotes of the rights of union members when it comes to freedom of speech regarding matters of union concern but it does not require a broad reading your honour's to for the law to encompass what my client was saying to mr meyer that as i say got him charged tried and him charged and this is very clear and it's not it's not disputed in the record what got my client charged tried and convicted with the statements that he made to mr m his union brother at that point your honour's my my client was not trying to get a job with dinah g my client was not trying to advance any personal interest of his own meyer became aware of my client's conversation with mr lynn and so and subsequent conversations with mr meyer where my client was asking about his  between individuals correct yes that's correct your honor and i and i would like to expand on that because i don't believe that it matters for purposes of the  a i don't believe that it matters how many of his union brothers my client was speaking to because the elem are gay provides three separate protections  within it and those protections are st of all the right to meet and assemble secondly the right to express any views arguments or opinions and thirdly the right to express  views at meetings on candidates or union business so the reason that it's important that those are three separate rights your honour's is because only one of those three rights refers to the right to express yourself it is irrespective of how many of your union brothers you're talking to where you're expressing the opinions and it doesn't have to be in a union meeting you had you there you have a right to this freedom of speech as long as the matter concerns the union membership as a whole and whether or not a union is going to be honest and ethical or conversely whether it's going to be corrupt and dishonest and certainly a matter that touches on the interests of the membership as a whole everyone should be concerned with the ethics and the case i believe that supports a standard that the l n r t a protect only expressive activities that implicate union democracy does that standard apply that is k and if so how how do these statements that you're are referring to implicate union democracy i don't believe that it's i don't believe that the elem archaea is limited to matters involving democracy in the sense that we normally use the word democracy that is having to do with elections or candidates that to the extent that the case you're on sites purports to limit union members right to freedom of speech to cases involving elections or candidates or instances involving elections or candidates i don't believe that's consistent with supreme court precedent i that quote democracy would be a sure democracy within the union that it would be assured only where members are free to discuss union policies and criticize the leadership without fear of reprisal close quote i would stay around or that it is clear that what mr barger was doing by telling mr meyer that the union that the local vice president are glia and two other union brothers at mr kelly's direction were engaging in corrupt activity that was looking bad on our union the statements of the supreme court in atlanta and in other cases that this certainly falls within the broad reading of the statute that that this court has required again emphasizing that  my client was directing his eye or in part at the vice president of his own local which and as we know from other cases outside the circuit particularly the petra male case from the nd circuit where the court has held that and any speech or any prosecution by a union of one of its members  that includes an allegation of slander against a huge new leader as a per se violation of the elem r t a a per se violation of the statute if the  anything erasures it certainly has to mean that a union member has the right to criticize its leadership and to to accuse its leadership on ethical or corrupt practices and that's precisely what my client was doing when he was speaking to mr meyer so when the last thank you now this case your honors is is really a very simple one at bottom it is about the right of a union member to say to his union brothers and sisters i don't like what our union is doing here we shouldn't be doing this this isn't the kind of union i want to be a part of this activity is making our union look bad your honour's if you can't say that without fear of reprisal if you can say that without fear of prosecution and how do we know that what your client was charged with and disconnect from the union you claim that it is the statements were just those that he made to mr meyer and not knows that he made it to an outsider how do i know that that's true other than get taking your word for it because because your honor that's what dave meyer himself said dave meier your honor was the person statements to mr lindh that caused him to bring these charges it was his subsequent statement to mr meyer himself his statements to mr meyer and so when he and mr myers words wouldn't let it go and he continued to press for on this issue of the corrupt activity being that he saw things we gauged him so that that record is crystal clear your honor it was not my client's statements to mr land it was rather my client's statements to mr meyer his younger brother when he was not looking for a job when he was not looking for any personal advantage it was those statements that got him charged tried and very well i want to say that nothing in tell in greek either his arguments previously raised before the court or the new arguments is practically presented for the st time to this court or even the new  allegations that he presented to you just now which do not appear in either of his briefs undermine the propriety of the district court's decision that part of your speech is not implicate matters that you need concern i will quote from the district court opinion based on deposition testimony not on the transcript which was never presented for argument here but rather on deposition testimony specifically the district court's order found that on october you're going to hurt the union members are going to hurt solid platform and barges position was he didn't care he wanted to get those guys he wanted to get  or whatever sort of statement that he wants to make and then we discovered that his sole purpose he didn't really care about it because the link would go purpose was that he had a personal vendetta against these three party we talked to diabetes maintenance manager he spoke to the to the i can receive business represented that he did not speak to the membership as a whole and we can we can sum up that perhaps he did that because it was trying to motivate my or to get him a job with dinah's your get his job back to south platte formes i know that's not in the record but the fact is he did not bring it up to the membership fee only is the purpose of the elem r d a is to protect union members to speak and to assemble his conversation with a rd party employer representative is not union speech the does not seek any relief for the d organization it's not any relief for the members of the organization it was simply for his attempt to get back wages and damages the logical or medical or whatever damage is the never incurred so by definition this complaint is a singular complaint you cannot change a complaint i want my lost wages and you cannot convert it now at this level into single eyes really concern about my union brother he did say that his complaint was simply a small low individual c it deals with you in deference it deals with the rights of need assemble express views elections this is properly before the meeting it doesn't say that my speech to the rd party is not a member is it covered under this law he could have raised it before but he brought it up solely in presley because he was looking for a job because the had just lost the job but apparently he was mad at the three supervisors who apparently he decided that cited to lay them off and he was going to get even with any time but he waited until he lost his job and he needed a new job period this is a idiosyncratic take he's only seeking relief for himself as he said no this is this is not a case like nots or assume in the from the circuit which deal with you publication those cases dealt with the probation again in a legal prohibition against numbers expressing themselves in the union plaintiff communications with authority about alleged human corruption and not the type of expression protected by the element the free speech provisions of bad acts are designed to protect speech in the context of the union democratic each to our rd party ted never would be protected i mean what if he had gone to the state attorney general or you know what if there were actual corruption and part we don't know the truth and they knew that there is no agency relationship between the u b c any other defendants which charge or admits and does not dispute nd the u b c did not ratify any alleged misconduct of the other defendants or engage in a conspiracy of the defendants want to run away from this and get the court to ignore it but mr meyer himself made quite clear and this is not a new argument it was in the district court decision that was in the briefing below and it's in the briefing but so for the recor it is not the statements that were made to mr lindh that got my client charged tried and convicted it was the statements he made to mr meyer himself a union brother where which had nothing whatsoever to do nothing whatsoever to do with my client trying to achieve new employment or obtain employment and i will reiterate this is very crystal clear in the record at page seventeen th sixty one of your honors at the very important question of whether or not motive matters and the fact of the matter is that my colleague sidestepped this question his response after st amendment principles this court said in the bank's case and in the bottle vs lorenzo case that motive if it matters at all matters it's very little if it is it is primarily a content based inquiry look we all we all have different motives for saying what we say many times we're acting out of personal motives but if i'm engaging in protected speech if i'm exercising a right that's guaranteed guaranteed to me as a union member or as a citizen it doesn't matter whether i have a self interested motive it is the content of my speech which is which is important and this this this very circuit has made that entirely clear the answer to your honor's question is no motive does not matter nor does it matter that he made these statements to an individual union member or even to a rd party as opposed to  the union membership as a whole there is absolutely no requirement no requirement in the law that you have to make statements at a union meeting or to the union membership as a whole in order for it to be protected i would remind the court of another fact that's in the record and that is my client made these similar statements two years previously to another union member to callan back and i'll also remind the court that he was charged immediately after he made these statements to mr meyer and also important to recognize that what my client said to mr bott mr meyer in so far as if that is the kind of people we're going to have in our union i don't want to was the statement by prior thank you runners and i appreciate your time the nd spanking mistress and thank you to all counsel the case will be submitted