appeal concerns an effort by four defendants to prevent my client a prisoner rex chapelle from pursuing an appeal of a questionable civil retaliated against for the exercise of his first amendment rights three arguments have been offered against mr should held position to by the district court one more recently by the defendants none of these three succeed the first argument has to do with whether with respect to the access to courts claim the confiscat february two thousand and one this court entered an order denying him informal popper's status and up ordering that he paid a one hundred five dollars filing fee which he declined to do and under the circumstances that's quite understand terminated by reason of confiscation of his briefs by prison officials and such posner said it is that enough to name the cause of action to say that you would unite access to the courts and to give some indication of the time and place which  stand for that proposition stevenson had to do with the pro officers handing over of legal mail to a prison guard who then opened and the case took it for granted without deciding that the prison guards conduct in opening the w confiscated so you couldn't file your papers wouldn't get a reasonably prudent individual say well i'm why should i pay the filing fee additional extension of time in the real peel based upon the difficulty in photocopying without any apparent mention that his brief had been confiscated government at this point challenge that it was confiscated i think the record shows that the defendants claim and it's in the attachments to exhibits attached to the complaint that they returned these documents to him the same day that they took them to review but the question fear is whether or not that is evidence that can be considered by this in the rhodes case make a literary allusion i think this case is about the dog did not bark it's what he does not say that is more important than what he does say here on in the january was not a person of limited means the real scase had to do with the fact that he wanted to establish a savings account for about sixteen thousand dollars in proceeds from a previous litigation successful occasion  is there's there is no showing of retaliatory attack in town that was addressed in the previous questions and secondly there is no showing of a chilling effect on roads the roads characterization of the elements of the retaliation claim the second element they use is that the they say the ad for there must be adverse action because of the action of the defendant there are no allegations here linking the retaliatory the alleged county torrie activity with the protected activity he doesn't say that might my i wasn't give my photocopies because i brought all of these lawsuits there is no allocation of retaliatory intent and secondly the record clearly shows that there is no retaliatory intent here is we've identified in the record interfering what was the implementation of the photocopy policy and interfering with his copy well how could that be so if he's getting to court all the time you know  amendment rights that's what he's claiming and if that's the case what's the point of the chilling effect requirement in other words he's claiming he retaliates it was a self a first amendment interference i'm not quite sure if i understand your question but to me it always seems that we're dealing in a in a prison context and in a prison context the fear is that if you minute i have just stated a couple of points to me first with respect to the dog that did not bark the dog didn't bark right away but the dog started barking with the filing of the complaint and i think that's more than one of the points in that case the whole point of the catch twenty two referenced that subsequently geisha activity cannot be held against you in one of these retaliation cases and the focus is not on the particular plaintif whether he or she was chilled in the exercise of his or her first minute rights rather than for this is on whether a person of ordinary firmness would be chilled and i think the point of putting out a weapon and rosie robinson is to say that if the harm is more than minimal you can take it for granted or you can assume that a person of ordinary firmness would be chilled and it should not redound to the tortfeasor benefit if he or she happens to pick on someone of more than ordinary firmness thank you very