supposedly if we take a cell phone out and they had to photograph someone and they might be offended in a public place they could charge us with disorderly conduct now you would think in the briefing that took place in the dis photographing a redeal taping someone in a public place and the only person that we need for these charges is the person that we're photographing or videotaping there doesn't need to be a breach of the peace and that's what happened here now the supreme court has limited the reach of this is sort of the conduct state too so they can't be used to suppress the first amendment right there either limited facially or they're limited by decisions and one of the decisions are certainly that there needs they're still protected by the first amendment let's accept for a minute that miss mcclintic was educated and annoying was somebody photographing or video taping her in a public place fine that is not a crime maybe you have a civil case for something i don't know but you cannot use the police to enforce a disorderly conduct state you're against somebody that you like judge power i know that you were the one that wrote the opinion and surplus store adopting the illinois statute as the wrong because the two are similar that surplus stores doesn't apply the other problems you have with this your honor is that if you were to say that i think we can enforce this  disorderly conduct statute in such a manner to violate people's first amendment rights then you run into all sorts of problems with supremacy clause because you have to as a municipality also enforce federal laws and federal video taping people in public places it's absurd to even think that they could get away with something like this and say we need to discretion to do it then what's going to happen after that we need to discretion to decide whether taking out a phone and if you look at their briefing they've actually ratified that decision so we actually have a mono case here because the mediums say no these were just two officers we don't agree with what they were doing that went off on the wrong with saying is yes we agree with what they did and they need discretion to do it that's a mile or more no case right there they're saying this is our interpretation of the ordinance we're going to enforce it this way me against you and they haven't retreated from th because then you have an equal protection argument let's say this was the only time that they decided that they were going to enforce this disorderly conduct statute against someone for photographing or video taping people in a public place and the only time you you can say this is your municipal policy and then say well it's our municipal policy but you don't have a cause of action well if the act or trying to arresting someone or threatening to arrest one for photographing a video taping someone in a good law you know was cited by the district court in support of its decision to the smiths this matter outright and to borrow from that opinion there are so many problems with this lawsuit it's hard to know where to begin well i'll be going with the for the district court to deny plate this request for pup luminary injunction against the village for its attempt to enforce its own laws by a village ordinance or state law in the court correctly found that the first element was the only element that i need to consider with which was whether or not there was proof based on the allegations alone that mr spiegel was reasonably likely to succeed on the merits the court found that faced on its review  complaint including all the facts comments on all counts as well as its own inferences and experiences which it's entitle to take into consideration a town that the preliminary injunction aspect of this was not going anywhere so then the count against the village which does sound in mo now at least attempted to other court took a look at this at the pleadings that were currently before it and found that the enforcement of state law alone does not raise a claim for more no liability  he was never actually prosecuted so the whole theory here is that very threat of arrest whether or not that violates his constitutional rights judge that this report found that it did not and then the third issue for the court to decide and i see i'm coming up on my attorney were given multiple opportunities to do so i would respectfully suggest that all of these reasons fly here and while i was not a part of the lower court proceedings the court were to look at the docket there was multiple motions multiple attempts to clean up these pleadings i thought the court gave counsel every opportunity to defend them and found that he simply did not see the claim against the village under the mono case that is very much good look contact and i'm sure you read it and plaintiff's pleadings he makes reference to my client as being overweight and frequently drunk and attaches photographs of her nursing home suit in his pleadings this is not a lawsuit about the first amendment this is not lost about government action this is a lawsuit about one man who got kicked off his condo board and it's now raining havoc on the remaining members who in their right mind takes pictures of people in their in their swimsuits and the taxes those photographs to a pleading pleading and i've only been doing this thirty one years says that eight a litigant in a particular case references for weights and she says she frequently drunk this is purely and in a lawsuit like the other lawsuit in an effort to intimidate mr mcclintock and the rest of the condo members board members and or residents how many at the end of the day with respect to the actions of miss mcclintic you can see that this is a personal vendetta no one says those types of things in pleadings but secondly do we have a conspiracy do we have a conspiracy between the government the police  client is in fact my clients and agents of the state well the case both real clear you needed to express agreement and this goes this is kind of stuff in terms of we cannot have a conspiracy because we may or may not have a in terms of standards while i may or may not have a constitutional right to say or do certain things that conduct can still be disorderly ok i may have the right to say it but the way i say it and how i say it and where still may lead itself to disorderly conduct so you have my client conning the police when mr spiegel engaged in this behavior of videotaping not photographing just but also videotaping people who are in their seventies and eighties in their swimsuits at the pool seclusion because my time is running out we don't have to you know we know we know the elements but at the end of the day judge alice was very clear i may take all the rest is true but at the end of the day council meeting plaintiffs counsel did not plead  the question is not whether miss mcclintock was distressed or agitated by somebody taking pictures of her in a public place maybe she wants the question before your honor's with the constitutional issue with can she enlist the state see what's going to happen now every political opponents going to be using your well arctic police are going to become our best friends nobody's going to be able to carry a cell phone because they're carrying a weapon it's absurd to think that we're going to be able to use the cause a breach of the peace if my point is simply photographing or video taping her on a sidewalk and she's the only person there i don't care if she's jumping up and down and falls over yet is not a disorderly conduct because there's nobody else there to witness it clinton always likes to portray yourself as some sort of victim what counsel didn't tell you was she lurks around all the time period to mr spiegel's windows and it's not only to call the police on him she did it and actually violations and we'll kick them out of the candles this is somebody that is not an innocent bystander after these photographs that were reportedly taken of miss mcclintic at the pool the video and the complaint that mr and this other person mr wait at the pool because they were talking about condominium murders he believes then what happens is mr mcclintock runs into the video waving her hands when she sees mr spiegel like like this seeing  the supreme court has said they want objective categorical criteria with good reason we're not allowing these people will matter any other police officer to criminalize the first amendment whenever it's in their discretion thank you very much