thank you your honor sir it's a pleasure to be here in the city of nicholas longworth may please the court peter barmouth the appellant we're here to determine if the district court erred by ruling the government officials themselves may lead prayers and coerce audience participation during the course of an official government proceeding i would argue that this issue has already been conclusively decided by the courts in angle the supreme court said it is neither sack religious nor anti religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning prayers official prayers in baucus versus palo verde unified school district the ninth circuit said that screw board officials opening meetings with prayer solomon screw board meetings in the name of jesus displays the government's allegiance to a particular sect or creed and north carolina civil liberties union legal foundation vs constantly the first circuit ruled that a judge open court with a prayer for a judge to engage in prayer in court entangles the government and governmental and religious functions to a much greater degree than a chaplain praying before the legislatures i would argue that there's no intrinsic difference between an elected school board official and elected judge or an elected county commission in the course of offering these prayers there's an endorsement and advancement of the christian religion and there's excessive when a government official composes recites ads and gives these prayers is there a special test for legislative prayers because of the supreme court's decisions in march and town of gre marse in town of greece specifically looked at legislative prayers by either a paid chaplain or by guests guests chaplains or guests from the community they never looked at legislator as prayer giver themselves but the supreme court in greece discussed the legislative practices and the poor all the opinion made numerous statements to indicate that such a practice is unconstitutional the court held that legislators should not act to supervisors or censors of religious speech and should neither edit nor approve prayers in advance would it make a difference to you if the commission and the county of jackson were more religiously diverse i mean right now all the commissioners are christian but if they were if they were if you had some jewish members or muslim members if they were religiously diverse would would your argument be different no your honor because i believe any prayer by a government official in that setting in that governmental setting is a per of violation of the establishment clause also the county of jackson is seventy percent roughly christian and to my knowledge there's never been a jewish a muslim a pagan commissioner so during the entire time that i have been involved in local politics in jackson michigan every single prayer before the county board of commissioners has been christian i believe that two other courts have considered this issue since the ruling in greece and both of them held that it was unconstitutional practice in the and falls outside of the prayer practices approved in town grease so he did not remove fully the injunction that had been placed and then learn verses well county when considering facts very similar to the instant case the district judge held under the birds practice the government is delivering the prayers that were exclusively prepared and controlled by the government constituting a much greater and more intimate government involvement in the prayer practice then at issue in town the prayer opportunity cannot be exploited to advance a particular religion but as you noted judge griffin there's only been prayers in one religious denominations  through the entire time that i've been attending the county commissions every prayer has been christian this is majority rule in religion this is advancing the christian religion and happens month after month after month ok one commissioner actually acknowledged this in when there was a proposal by michael overton the administrator to set up a similar policy as the town of greece had this one commissioners rejected it unanimously but this one commissioner acknowledged every bird member here who gets up there and says a prayer during invocation we end our invocations in the name of jesus christ every single one is christian the district court found this majority rule and religion was not an error was not a problem the district court suggested that we should resort to elections to solve the problem i believe this stablish main clause was inserted into the constitution explicitly to prevent that there are some issues they withdrew from electorial activity and i believe oppose the court in town to greece also found that the government must maintain a policy of nondiscrimination town of greece policy was that any minister or any person could come and give an indication i believe they had one jewish member not not a rabbi but a jewish secular person come in given vocation and one wiccan was allowed to and wiccans and pagans such as myself are almost synonymous religions the jackson county commissioner said if someone from the public wants to come before us and said they are then minister we'll have to allow no that was one of the comments they used in rejecting michael overton's policy or you know propose policy the present case shows that there's discrimination they deliberately want to exclude anyone but christian  violates the holding in town of greece there is discrimination here the turn to greece also ruled the coercion or its absence was a decisive factor the town of gre be different if town members town board members directed the public to participate in the prayers every time i go on sherman shot well or one of the commission you have the citations i know you're aware of them but it goes on all rise and the sooner reverent position please by your head down your heads with me please please bow your heads i mean the last one  that was on october twenty first two thousand and fourteen is the word please mean that it's at the discretion of the audience whether or not to do it i am the only person who does not rise so you think it's the equivalent of a command i think it's the equivalent of the command shaman shotwell who you know chairs the meetings when he says this meeting is now in order please be silent that's a command no one speaks after that i think please rise is a command as well we open the cork with that and i notice you did rise this morning which i appreciated but our court officers please please rise as we walk and then the court officers says god save the united states and this honorable court is that much different than that well yes the court officer is not an intellect a government official that's also one of those like legislative prayer by a guest chaplain or by a paid chaplain it's one of those exceptions and clause because it's been a tradition that's been carried on for a long time i want to get to that point as well the idea of tradition there is not a tradition in this country of government officials of elected judges of elected school board members of elected county commissioners elected city council members giving prayers that was not the case at the time when the constitution was pas agree with judge moore that the standard set forth in martian town of greece controls in this case but there are three aspects of the county commissions practices that go further and violate the guidance set forth in those decisions i'm the first aspect is that unlike in town of greece it's the county commissioners themselves that are instructing audience members to participate in the prayers mr ward with mentioned instructions to rise to bow your heads to assume of every position and although sometimes they say please many other times they go to many other times just to quote a few october twenty fifth before you move on yes distinction between the chaplain and the commissioners themselves you say it's important you are aware of the cases before t greece in the fourth eleventh the ninth circuit that held that prayers by the town officials did not violate the establishment clause there was one opinion written for in the fourth circuit by justice sandra day o'connor that specifically says that there is no distinction how do you how do you reconcile those cases i'd say two things first of all all of those cases predated town of greaser and town of greece when dealing with the did not seem to make it it's a distinction for the fourth a lot of the night yes right i think the distinction matters because the the concern here with respect to coercion is that if i'm appearing before the county commission in two or three minutes i'm going to ask for something that's important to me and perhaps importantly financially that if the decision maker my decision maker not invited chaplin not even a page happened but the actual decision maker is instructing me to do something i'm going to feel far more compelled to follow their instructions benefits a guest chaplain or even a paid chaplain who won't be making any decisions during the meeting even though this is only one of i'm not sure how many county commissioners they have and jackson one of five or one of seven or one of mine that's only one of the numerous commissioners i think that he or she has the sway a little bit of a stretch as well i don't think so your honor for a couple of reasons first of all because they're rotating over if you attend a series of meetings that someone like mr moore with does you're going to hear those instructions from each of the commissioners but but beyond that many of the instructions come from the chairmen himself in fact in many instances even when a different commissioner is actually delivering the prayer the chairman  sitting on the day this will instruct everyone to rise in some cases to assume a reverent position then the prayer will be delivered by one of the commissioners sometimes adding his or her own instructions and i think the instructions from the chairman as the pres officer in the meeting i think carry even greater weight because i think it especially when it's the chairman not delivering the prayer it suggests a certain formality a procedural formality because this is the person running the meeting this is the this is the person directing the meeting calling the different segments and so i would say that a direction from the chairman is even more important i do want to turn back to town of greece first of all judge griffin ask your question as to what is the controlling opinion with respect to coersion i believe that  section two be the plurality authored by justice kennedy and joined by two other justices is controlling how could it be it's broader than justice thomas opinion which interprets coersion as legal coersion legal coersion the three in the prouty justice alito the chief justice and justice kennedy would agree with legal coercion but they would go farther their opinion is broader than judge justice thomas legal  because they they look at the coersion of a person in the audience and that they only have three votes for that coersion standard and when you only have three justices subscribing to a standard it's hard for me to say that that is controlling with respect to its griffin in the context of town of greece the three to a pillar a plurality was actually the narrower opinion because the holding of the court was that there was no coercion the broader holding by justice scalia and justice thomas was that you could never have coercion absent legal penalties that the narrow narrower his his standard of coersion justice thomas is much narrower and narrower legal coersion and that assumed in kennedy's opinion you even need to because the although the theory although the standard as articulated by justice thomas and scalia would have found coercion on fewer things i think you have to look at that in light of the outcome of the case the outcome of the case was there is no coercion and so then when looking at whether you call it narrow you say why was there no coercion in the context of kind of grease the broader holding was from justices thomas and scalia they said you could never have coercion absent formal legal compulsion the plurality said sometimes you can but not in here and so within the context of ruling against the plaintiff and town of greece the narrower way to rule against the plain it was to say maybe you could have coercion absent legal penalty but you don't in this case but what justice what the plurality did say and we do submit that is the controlling plurality is that the analysis would be different if town board members directed the public to participate in the prayer and that's exactly what's going on here it's a town board members meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting many times the chairman of the commission that is providing that instruction and that was a distinction between how to respond in this case and it's a distinction that makes sense and as i said earlier i'm not going to be asking the chaplain for something five minutes after the prayer but i am going to be asking members of the commission in fact perhaps the chairman in addition to the instructions from the commissioners i think there are other specific facts that make this case go beyond town of greece first of all there's evidence that before you go to those specific facts how would you explain how the test is applied from from town of grace let's assume that we would agree that the three members the three justices is the controlling test for which what let's we'll assume your argument that the the argument by justice thomas would would not be a subset of and is not a subset of that and is not the controlling opinion so let's assume that  then how does that work is there a totality of the circumstances that is the entirety of the test or is there some sort of coercion question based on of is the prayer opportunity being exploited to advance christianity perhaps i'll discuss that my rebuttal and then and that was discussed in section two way of the opinion and then in section two b they treated the argument as a separate independent co coersion argument i would argue either one of those violates the constitution and here when you have both the constitutional violations you can clear and you are going to you've used up your time but you were going to have three points one was that was the commissioner could you just state briefly point two and point three so we know where you were going to go but cannot thank you just more on the second point was specific evidence of exploitation of the opportunity to advance christianity including declining to create an outside chaplain policy for specific fear that non christian viewpoints would be allowed as well as directing the prayers to members of the audience at in the record or were to come up with so if you look at the meeting the nov twelfth two thousand and thirteen personnel commission meeting that we cited in our brief and i believe under federal rule to a one you can take judicial notice of what was not in the district court record is not i don't believe it specifically in the district court record or appeal is usually limited to the district court record well in  federal rule to a one allows you to take additional notice of our motion for us to do so but i don't believe a motion is required and in fact in the court's decision in two thousand and eight united states who has ramos the court s jury questionnaires that had not been put in the record and so that and the comments that were made at this november two thousand and thirteen meeting that hard for us to reverse a district court and evidence that wasn't presented to them that's that's one of my problems well so there was actually a newspaper coverage of that meeting that is in the record that was an exhibit in mr bork i believe either his motion for summary judgment or his opposition and i think the comments which are elaborated show that there is concern with  mr born with pointed out inviting outside speakers creates the risk that we have someone else who's a minister who might pray in a way that we don't like and so and so and that and other evidence which we discussed in section one in our brief goes to the exploitation the final point is evidence of disparagements in retaliation against religious objectors that when mr bournemouth objected to the prayers the commish one of the commissioners actually turned his back on him and when the lawsuit was filed a commissioner describe the lawsuit as quote an attack on our lord and savior jesus christ in an attack on jesus christ period and that shows you know only that religious objectors will be disparaged and perhaps retaliated against but it also shows you that the county commission views opportunity not simply as a way to solve them nicely or meetings but as in a way a but as a way to advance jesus christ and that's precisely what town of greece said the purpose is not supposed to be and that's why unlike in town of greece these practices are unconst we say that all the commissioners are christians some of them roman catholics some presbyterians some of them congregationalists i mean do we know what what religion they are other than overall i don't know the answer to that in our theory doesn't usually i mean you often have disputes even within protestants between different sects of of religions but ok we're we don't know that i mean i don't know if there are roman catholics or i don't know that theory does not turn on the religious composition of the commission per se it turns on the various factors have identified the directions to participate the exploitation to advance christianity it could just as well have been exploitation to same crack this were in place in hamtramck that each member of the city commission could open session with a prayer that most of the prayers would be muslim prayers and  prayer practice was being used as a way to promote islam to advance islam or some other religion then it would be a good argument doesn't turn on the specific religious beliefs of the commissioners it turns on the overall circumstances of the practice and the circumstances of this practice go well beyond that of trying to create if the commissioners were more religiously religiously diverse i mean would your argument still have the same force i think the inference that the goal was to advance christianity might be weaker if there were more religious diversity but some of the other things the instructions to all rise value or had in the summa reverent position i think is the same whether the commissioners christian jewish muslim hindu or anything else because if i'm in the audience and i do not want to join or assume or reverent position of a prayer in that particular tradition and that coersion is a problem if i were disparaged for declining to participate or for objecting to the practice that too would be the same no matter what the beliefs of the commissioner i agree that it might be harder to show exploitation to advance a single religion if all of the commissioners were of different religions but when there is other evidence here of  of you know the effect of advancing christianity and it also turns out that all of the commissioners are christians and most of the prayers are christians i think all of that points in the same direction thank you thank you for me thank you richard mcnulty on behalf of jackson county your honor the practice of jackson county of hoping in opening its sessions with the pledge of allegiance and the invocation given by nine one nine commissioners on a rotating basis is wholly consistent with the legislative prayer tradition set forth in greece and in marsh with respect and i'm there are two views here and i'm trying to address both of them mr berman says taking the position that the prayer practice is outside of the legislative sphere and as such march in greece should not apply or the standards set forth in march or in greece should not apply with respect to that we would respectfully disagree and we would set forth that the prayer practice of members giving prayers or invocations prior to a legislative session is historically as significant as having agents of the legislature a pastor either i should say a pastor who is hired and retained by the legislature or or a pastor who a volunteer and invited to give the prayer is that those were not involved in town of greece or march right those did not involve the actual legislate tours those did not involve the actual legislate tours but if you look at the mar decision what they say what how it started was it said legislative prayer is consistent with this country's traditions and as such is permissible and now we look at the specific practice here that's how started and what march then went on to say is a speech the practice here i e of a specific she's me of the legislator or the legislature excuse me as a whole retaining and paying a minister presbyterian minister in that case for sixteen years on an exclusive basis did not violate that practice it seems to me more of an entanglement with the church with the legislatures actually pain  on a sixteen year basis and the same church for sixteen years as opposed to and that was a presbyterian minister but and in your honor i think i agree with you have eastley in the district court also agreed with you that what the district court held or one of the basis of the district court's holding was it would be it would be strange constitutionally and nonsensical to allow the zach same prayers to come from a minister or a pastor retained by the legislature i e agent of the legislature and not allow those exact same prayers to come from an individual legislat verses the person who is about to decide your petition making the prayer i i i respectfully don't when you look at it in this way your honor first of all an individual commissioner has no authority whatsoever his only the commission is a body which hears grievance and it's nine different separate commissioners so it's only a majority as a whole which does it secondly your honor i don't know if so it depends on whether you and listened to by the others particularly if if you have prayers that are right taking regularly and are in this setting specific tradition so don't you can't you see a distinction there again your honor i think i think i see i see this distinction but i think it's a distinction that actually supports our position because in our position under your circumstances five out of the nine commissioners and i'm just going to use commissioners here could let's say there is a diverse board and to go to the idea that that our lark commissioners are christian if that is not in the record what is in the record is the prayers themselves granted first because she asked for something with respect to with respect to under your scenario using a presbyterian minister if we had just five presbyterians on the board and fo muslims jewish people catholics the majority could a point a presbyterian and vote who would then become the sole and paid the sole voice of government agent for people who appointed him are but it's the it's the action of directing people to rise in this room reverend position that i think they're objecting to and that occurs whether the ministers or the ministers in that case the christian ministers in that case were saying please rise were facing the audience and not facing the the commissioners and the and while the dissent found that to be of moment the majority did not the majority found that to be part of the standard solemn ceremonial part of a commissioners meeting now what before i ask my question  with respect to with respect to your question your honor we set forth in our motion for summary disposition the prayers and the indications given over a two year period which was prior to the motion for summ opposed to the commissioners using it for themselves to gain wisdom or to seek guidance of those thirty one prayers twenty nine expressly requested guidance or wisdom in performing commissioner legislative duties twenty such protections of the troops first responders farmers or the killed or deceased members of the community no prayer preach conversion denigrated nonbelievers or threaten damnation in one one third of the prayers were were were started with a please stand or please bow your heads two thirds of the prayers were not at least based upon the record and going to the finally to getting to your point judge moore i would agree that the prayers given the invocations given were in the judeo christian tradition but they definitely were not exclusively tradition only thirteen of the prayers mention jesus and remember thirteen out of thirty nine only thirteen out of excuse me thirty one thirteen out of thirty one to mention jesus christ or the holy spirit most of the prayers when the the other prayers refer to a more i don't want to say generic day but god lord the things which the plaintiffs in greece were trying to get the board to limit themselves to that is what was done and the district court undertook the facts sensitive analysis and the facts sensitive balancing that is required and which i believe is required within the parameters as to whether or not there is coersion dogma and work within the spirit of solemn respectful prayer approved by marsh and i think your honor if you focus on the prayers and the prayer opportunity which i think is the lesson from both martian greece as you focus on over time a factual analysis of the prayer opportunity these prayers are by any standard not violent of of and so you would not you would not look beyond that of their statements from the board so if you pray right then someone comes before you and has a petition a board member could look down and say ok here you can make your argument and that would be disconsolately appropriate you know i'm not saying that that that would be appropriate your honor but that's not the facts the facts in this case well the no i think what i'm struggling with is the test i want to understand whether you think there is one kind of totality of the circumstances test that we must look to as opposed to to having an initial feeling like and correct me if i'm incorrect what i'm hearing is that there is this beginning coersion test and if you don't violate cases over you don't look at anything else my understanding is that there are more circumstances that must be examined i think we talked earlier about  directions to participate which may or may not be considered part of the prayer exploitation of a policy your refusal to expand the policy or disparagement of an individual of a different faith those may not be those may not occur within the body of the prayer so articulate for mehad you understand this test a function i believe that taken as a whole the test would function that the prayer opportunity as a whole passes the test as long as it does not denigrate nonbelievers for religious minorities threaten damnation or preach conversion in the context of the prayer in can or in prayer to nara context of the way the board addresses the public that comes before them i think absent actual conversion excuse me coercion for proof of actual portion from the board i think you focus on the prayer context and the prayer opportunity if there is evidence of actual coercion or retaliation then that was something that could properly be considered as part of the opportunity as a whole but the fact is that is that you start with the prayer opportunity and whether that has been abused and in this case i respectfully submit that we're not even close to the line of abusing this prayer opportunities does the record show that there was an effort by anyone to broaden the scope of the prayers in other words to have someone other than christian commissioners deliver the prayers now as to in terms of lawsuits avoidance and waiting for greece is what should occur but those were more in terms of what should occur later but i want to point out to your honor's because it's unique to mission i think it's unique to mission i thought i thought there was record evidence that commissioners expressed negative views about having other people give the prayers i don't believe that there are there is your honor not record if they that they were quoted as saying that they were they didn't amick is brought into this case that newspaper articles and statements that were not part of the record below that was i it's three things your honor first of all there's official minutes which are required under law to be kept there are then audiotapes and videotapes of each meeting now a couple of the tapes were corrupted and it shows it in our exhibits but for the vast majority every single meeting is videotaped and audio tape and available online and you place that the county places that yes the county police so that's your official record yes your honor so another question that i had is the is commentary in the briefs about one of the commissioners turning his back when the plaintiff here was making statements or comments  one of the meetings is that in the record is that correct that is in the record in that it that is something that plaintiff alleged and it is in his complaint the the actual record itself show does not show th it there is no evidence in terms of the record as to whether that assertion is true or not in that the tape folk in the tape goes to the speaker in terms of the camera so when mr bournemouth was speaking it goes to him when he finished speaking it goes  the board when it went back to the board it did not show anyone with their back turned but in terms of what occurred it is in the record that that was mr brewer miss assertion however i would like to point out and this goes to the to two things  one is the idea that is being advanced here is that only the commissioners get to give their religious views and that is a total misnomer under michigan law at least on the local level well did anyone other than the commissioner give the prayer they did not give the prayer but they during what's called a call to the public members of the public are permitted to stand up and as long as it does not breach the peace allowed to address any topic that they desire for up to three minutes mr boerma uniformly and repeatedly used that opportunity to give his views on his prayers to excuse me on his religion to espouse his religion and not not constrained denigration based upon upon his not participation in the prayers or is a denigration based upon the way in which he is interacting with the board of commissioners but i would that a fact question that would preclude summary judgment i don't think so your hon because it is a it is a it is an established fact that both sides agree with and and quite frankly taken as a whole sides agreed that the nitwit comment was made well if it's on the record you're official it's on your if it's on the record then we agree we all agree just like we agree as to what every single prayer says you said there was in fact question as to whether the nitwit comment was being made because of the raising of the religious issue or some other reason yes and my question then is normally when there is a fact question that is material that that precludes summary judgment so why not here because i don't think that that the even if that statement were this was you can refresh my recollection but my recollection was that the other commissioners did not stop the one from calling mr bournemouth and that the other commissioners and that mr bourn also has the point that he was not a pointed to one of the commissions that is in the record and point that he was trying to supplement the record for that he was down to point to another commission type and correct though wouldn't all of this point to there being at least a question of fact as to whether or not there was retaliation a him on the basis of his religious opposition to the practice of the commissioners well i did taking this prayer i would i would say i would say that those isolated into instances do not rise in a large enough to establish coercion and they were explained at least one of them the turning the back aspect was explained by the judge as as a single person is probably not appropriate referral to the meant the point if we put it in the context of this hearing if one of us turned our back when you're making an argument because we didn't like it that would seem to be a rejection of your argument where as you know we're  aging and that's true with every council that in every participant that we have here that we try to engage and try to figure out where to go whereas turning the back is a pretty much significant rejection of somebody's viewpoint well your honor and again even if it's done by one individual it's the board as a whole that that matters and in this case there is no in of but instead the board of the whole as a whole which is the legislative body undertook any type of action except to deny him appointment to the one commission that's definitely within the scope of the record and well except it's within the scope of the record in that he in that he alleges it hasn't been established right  case remember this started as a challenge to the nonsectarian prayer nature and then grease came out and it kind of morphed into this coercion type of analysis but the fact still remains is that what he is was asking for is that and what's in his prayer for relief is that the board of commissioners stop making any reference to god jesus and stop saying prayers there's nothing about in his prayer for relief asking him to be appointed or asking that he that or some type of retaliation in his prayer for relief in the complaint but to go back i think if you do what the district court judge and you look at the prayers either taken as a whole and you compare them to the prayers in that were passed in city of greece when i say passed were authorized in city of grace and in chambers these are the prayers do not go into don't those cases  say this is not an issue of disparagement or this is not an issue of reprisal or one of those things present this might be a different case so the question becomes is are we in that different case because you have a number of commissioners either saying disparaging in a response and and i think when you look at some of the you know the discussion in particular  opportunity to implement a more open policy several of the commissioner say this is this is nothing more than an attack on jesus christ or this is nothing more than an attack on my faith doesn't that in fact put it as a contrast between the members of the council to whom the tale and including m petition and the commission itself is this not one of the other factors that town of greece teaches and marsh also must be considered i would say your honor that that greece and marsh and the processor focus on the prayer opportunity and whether it is being abused by focus on discrimination to counsel or me that's that was my question earlier do you get to say a prayer that saif and then you get to turn to somebody else of another faith when they come before you for a petition or a request inside to them not you know you're not the signs i thought i am i'm not giving you that that's not in the prayer that i see but it is the effect and the action that i took so that's why i'm struggling with your test i don't i don't think we just get to pick up the body of the prayer when we do have to look at that but then we're looking at the totality of the circumstances do we have somebody on the record saying i'm not appointing this person to the wife's water board because this person doesn't agree with my friend wouldn't that in fact  exactly what marsh and town of gre your honor if that were the case i could see i could see that being lead actual course in the case in the case here is mr form with alleges that that was the reason but the board of commissioners there is no evidence that the board of commissioners considered anything other than the experience and in terms of its one appointment that's on the record the experience and the qualifications in its collective judgment there is no indication as you said that that there was a commissioner or anything on the record going to any improper motivation then the question to us is the comment about mr bowman being a nit wit or statements that he's just attacking me or he's attacking my faith or he said tacking jesus christ then those have to be you say not none of those who rise to dispute of material from past to be your position am i correct yes and especially when it's only done by an individual commission or the law even if it's done bathroom or for people on the commission individually your honor if it's done by an individual commissioner yes or to individual commissioners the individual motivations of a legislator in their actions are not imputed to the legislator as a whole and what if it were a majority of the commissioners who had made individually such statements that then mean the statements could be attributed to the board board of commissioners as a whole if it was it within the context of the legislative decision yes entire legislative body in michigan an individual commissioner has no authority to bind to speak for to or to even be deposed regarding his motivations for legislative actions because an individual commissioner is irrelevant it's only the body that hypothetically if one commissioner said i'm not going to vote in favor of joe smith because joe smith is hindu and then the and i don't know i guess you're relying on michigan law that that statement as to what that commissioners reason was is irrelevant that it's not attributable to the to the motivation of the rest of the legislature in making their vote just like a member of congress one member of congress might have a reason which might not be the loftiest for making a vote in fifty nine might have the lofty ifs of reasons and the one person's improper motivation does not become attributable to the rest of the people who vote for something do you have a case or something you'd like to send us to look at for that principle i can you're an absolute thank you we've taken you over your time to first in the case were commissioned aleck made faces a discussed and then swivel his chair completely around with his back to me i was quoting thomas jefferson i was not giving forth my own opinions about my own religion i was quoting one of our primary authors of the bill of rights a person who pushed madison to get that through congress with regard to coersion cotton town of greece did say th would be different if town board members directed the public to participate in the prayer ok with regard to turn to greece they saw nothing in the record indicates a town leaders allocated benefits or burdens based on participation in the prayer or the citizens were received differently depending on whether they joined the invocation in the instance to tell leaders signal disfavor toward non participants or suggest that their stature in the community was anyway diminished but they've done those things to me with regard to the solid waste planning committee i had worked three years on closing the jackson county resource recovery facility the month before i address the commissioners on their prayer practice i got an eight to one vote from the commissioners in favor of closing with only sherman shotwell objecting the next month when i went back and i could challenge their prior practice when it came time for appointments to the board all the commissioners who  previously been securely in my favor voted against me my name was not even put up for nomination i also want to mention very quickly but even in the cases where the people did not specifically say in the name of jesus christ what they say is a euphemism for that is in your holy name every prayer has been c also want to mention the treaty of tripoli simple because article six section two makes the supreme law of our land and it says that the government in the united states is none any sense founded on the christian religion and i believe that this treaty ratified by the senate and signed into law at that time by john app adams faithfully reflects the opinion of the founders that no government official in the course of their official duties should bind together record as well there are these young children that are invited to give the pledge allegiance directly following this indication i believe this is a constitutional violation and of a serious dimension and october twenty first for instance two thousand and fourteen this is the prayer by phil dockum it's the only prayer that really steps over the line most of the others are benign i'm not challenging the content of the prayer other than in the name of jesus christ the fact that they're all christian and so there's majority religion but third buckle said we pray for all the christians worldwide who are subject to killers and extremists ignored all the other people all the other face that are subject to killers and extr show when a government official prays for all the christians worldwide in the name of jesus christ and then these young people get up and demonstrators scales your honour's this is an outrageous violation of the first amendment and i believe it should be dealt with separately and that there should be a separate injunction preventing this are taking questions at this point thank you very much january two thousand and eleven all stand coming from commissioner hurl march fifteenth two thousand and eleven everyone please stand by your headsets commissioner dockum august twenty first two thousand and twelve commissioner williams please rise  june eighteenth two thousand and thirteen commissioner paul say all rise on aug twentieth two thousand and thirteen commissioner l will please please rise plus share shotwell repeatedly delivering commands to rise and assume a reference position so that already gets you to six out of nine and while that may not be an official declaration of the commission if i'm advising someone who's about to petition the commission i would certainly advise them to not disobeyed the instructions that are provided by multiple commissioners and i think the same goes for the retaliation if i were arguing before let's say a different panel of a court and one judge in the middle of my argument call me a nitwit another judge turned around in the third judge accuse me of attacking our lord and savior jesus christ again that may not legally amount to a published decision of that court but i certainly the next time i argued before that panel would think twice about making those arguments and i think that goes to if you look at town of greece it's a it's ultimately a very practical decision it is looking at circumstances and determining what a citizen who is attending feel compelled to participate in a prayer that they that might go against their conscience and when the commissioners including the chair are repeatedly asking not just to stand respectfully but to assume a reverent position in other words make an outward manifestation of prayer when it's being done in close quarters with small with few people there and one objectors artists berridge are you know visibly retaliated against i think all of those things would make someone think twice about not going along at the very least i think judge moore is right