name's main points and highlight my main points but if you're on his have any questions my main concern is that his question is what conceivably is wrong with what your two wednesday did ok ok but that now you can give me your argument that you would have given if the question had been asked ok there are two main points on this appeal the judge weinstein felt was so close that for the st time in  time on the bench he certified these issues for in a locked tory appeal because although he came out on one side he did acknowledge well close or not they were really critical to the and they were they were you know this is a separate fact situation power under the commerce clause and i'll just go through the four factors the st factor is whether the the activity being regulated is economic activity now this court the nd circuit in us v westland in  and eight before marcy and addressing that section of the statute dealing with access to abortion clinics harassment and threats at abortion clinics this court acknowledged correctly that the activity being regulate worship in in a religious in in a religious context and and it doesn't just apply to these people it applies to everybody and that religion is is in effect and activity generally the you the worshipping and the activities of religion are substantially a fact interstate commerce just as george weinstein determined but under that logic violence against women battering women sending women to hospitals guns outside of schools where the dissent in lopez pointed out all of the economic effects of violence outside of schools and guns outside of schools that very logic simply is inconsistent with the supreme court's teaching and lopez and morrison and lopez and marson the for the framework that the supreme court established is that we're not talking about post new deal that anything ghost that's just the fact the fact is the supreme court of the united states and this court is duty bound to follow those decisions has said there is a limit and the way that the supreme court do instructed that we have to look at this issue is st to consider whether the activity being regulated is economic it is not this court in u s b westland held it is not the plaintiffs acknowledged that beloved it didn't cite that case in their brief it was simply missing because they know that on that factor it goes against them this is not economic activity which is being regulated the activity being regulated is harassment threats intimidation no different than the type of activity being regulated in morrison with violence against women and the nd factor whether the statute contains a jurisdictional element it does not now this court is faced with an optical problem protect abortion clinics but not churches but that's a false dichotomy because there's a statute section two hundred and forty seven dollars which protects churches  property and has a jurisdictional element the fact of the matter is this was sloppy congressional work and this is that's not this court's fault that this court will not disturb the federal government's ability to protect religion or property of religion property well that's right and the fact of the matter is this the congress could have put up a provision in this statute that had interest external element but it didn't so the fact of the matter is that's a problem because now absolutely no findings whatsoever on the effect that harassment or intimidation at places of religious worship have so it fails the rd factor and then on the th factor the link between the activity being criminal and the effect on interstate commerce now the plaintiff's brief really reads almost exactly like the dissent in the decision in united states v lopez in united states v lopez the dissent goes on justice briar legitimately explains why guns and violence outside of schools have tremendous economic aggregate effects and that schools are economic engines and hubs of commerce and so on and so your time is dwindling ok so i'd like you to ask ad like to ask you to address your statutory interpretation question about places every religious worship because if we find that the district court erred in his construction of the statute i think we don't need to address the commerce clause question is that correct thank you ron so if you take your remaining or some of your remaining time here i appreciate you asked that question and that would be helpful appreciate that you honor the district court made another error again respectfully judge weinstein enjoyed the briefing on both sides he found the briefing to be excellent both sides so respectfully the district court erred and his interpretation a place of religious worship the plain text of place of religious worship just looking at the plain text in both dictionaries and in case law and in zoning ordinances does not suggest that it just means if a group of catholics who belong to a church happened to get together and get a permit to put a table to protest abortion in the face of people walking by in the streets and they choose to inject that political discourse on the streets and get a permit the getting of a permit obtaining a permit does not transform that table to a place of religious worship it's a jury question the question for the jury is we there is the mountain of evidence in this case that the that these failing members corner where there is much evidence in the case that the main purpose of the tables is to engage in political discourse with the play along on tables with they do is they say that the communist party in china is evil that if you're chinese american you're presumably brainwashed by the chinese communist party and you need to convert which is why there's some tension in political discourse it's we're not in fact using it and i will point to pages and we pointed in our briefs that the district court just took at face value the statement by some of the plaintiffs after i deposed the fur st ones and they admitted they weren't praying at the tables there were thirteen of them then plaintiffs council got the later ones to start saying they were praying that's a fact question for the jury i get to go to a jury and say is this a place of religious worship or are these people heckling about china communist china and that you need to convert from communism you don't think the district court just made an erroneous legal determination in construing the statute you think it was a fact question that had to go to the cherries that he made a ye both he made a legal error in taking away from the jury ruling that as a matter of law this table had to be a place of religious worship that's a legal agree that's a legal area you could have a place of religious worship outside of a building if there's an area where indisputable indisputable you know where the jury determines that that was a place of religious worship they really were worshipping they weren't heckling on the streets about the the premier of china if that if i went  over if you will someone went over to that peaceful group that would that was a place of worship that that would be covered but that but the judge took that away from me for religion a place of worship is wherever you neal down and pray if the religion that was part of the do of the religion you couldn't challenge but that's not these facts and in fact there is a question about whether if you inject yourself on the street to engage in political discourse now that automatically is a place of religious worship especially given the fact that senator kennedy was very worried about that because he wanted to make it absolutely clear that you could not just set that up outside an abortion clinic and say now i have a place of religious worship he specifically had a dialogue huling legislative history here because  four sorry when you're saying the places of worship involved congress were in what we're using that term places of worship i mean religions involve commerce i'm talking about actual houses of worship and then i can address informal places of worship so be another word give me an example of a house of worship the house of worship where you church some are lying on the pew report which is an empirical study done by the pew foundation or rd by bernard graham and in that report he makes clear he makes a number of points there houses of worship meaning that would be covered buildings contribute one percent including all religions that are not illegal and of course my co counsel be defining this in more detail but that to be the place that the religion designates for worship possible that somebody who has a gun would bring the gun into the school from the school zone it's possible that somebody you know has a gun and might use it and it's possible that might use it and injure people but it's also possible that he might not so my understanding of all pairs is that there just may my word well in the statute number one and number two as you said that scalia defined as economically excludes from the definition of economic possession but as you're saying of course the school itself is you know could be seen as economic  somebody and a religious place of worship requires injury or requires threats of force or force that injure injure the person so i think  activity that was not because martin to me is is even more abstract quite frankly because regardless of what i think about the violence against women act that it's not te to any place i mean it could be any time it could be any place i mean it might be a place of work work it might be worth while the woman's working it might be you know while she's i don't know getting her hair done whenever  have been a parallel so i think in both morrison and lopez when they define economic activity they're talking about well this is not in any way economic in any sense of the word is this economic suggesting that you know more sort of low pairs or sort of at the end of a continuum that you know of cases i would not be upheld but that when there is more economic when when something court essentially took away from the jury a fact question and do it by proposing a hypothetical supposing that you have a dual or multi purpose  sight maybe it's a maybe it functions as a resale shop of the sort that churches and schools and stuff like that often have and that the habit at this at this place is at the opening of the day or at the close of the day while the major activity that's performed is selling selling merchandise there is a ceremony or a moment at the end at which worship  performed at the center at the end there are two minutes of of worship food meditation prayer whatever and the defendants in the case come and obstruct and do the things that statute acts of worship are performed when they constitute a minute portion of what happens as opposed to a major portion or does that enter into it at all and i understand you're a fact of some  worship make it a place of worship so that it's so that it's covered and i understand the hypothetical your honor just st quickly these places involved worship all the three things that they were doing involve worship so that's of karma reduction so i would insert in this particular instant dispute in terms of what percentages and in the abstract churches synagogues other places of religious worship certainly have mixed uses and there's no question that they are places of religious worship if you analogize this to the minister out searches and synagogues and places like that are places where we are even if they have some some some uses that are not on worship court to take that into consideration terms of constitutional avoidance as well i'd like to ask you to focus on the judge of all his had his question answered adequately i'd like you to ask ask you focus on  mobility of these tables and make an argument that there proximate to a building and that there permit it and so on but i have difficulty drawing a limit on  you know where i live in new haven there are people on the borders of the green every day from the church of latter day saints proselytizing and they are mobile they move around me they may have a sign and you know their conduct is religious in some respects but i don't see them as necessarily protected by this statute which is to protect label to protect a facility or place of religious worship and this each of these sites and i think that i need you to help drive the limit of your position yes and each of these sites has a designated address that is authorized by the police each of these sites is in close proximity to one another as well as a issue that my colleague raises in terms of the question of what is a place if it's a building or not and he just essentially conceded in his argument that it wouldn't matter so we might have a different view i understand i understand your honor so we're just giving that one thing to consider enters their close proximity their extentions field and part of the center but independently of that they operate exclusively exclusively so only for this particular purpose every day seven places of religious worship to the extent that and the question before this court is to clarify how does the face act apply to the instant dispute and so to the extent that there is guidance would i be protected if i you know every morning  seven days a week i stopped on the corner of the new haven green and had a worship moment and someone assaulted me there so i protected by the statute is that because that's a place where i regularly worship if it's a designated place for that particular purpose i designate it well the question would be whether or not dictionary act talks about locality dictionary talks about locality it talks about area spot but in kind that we have to look at in the context of the statute which is called what freedom of access to clinical facilities act yes your or something close to that right and it's really important the statute says place of religious worship it doesn't say facility it doesn't say religious real property doesn't it house that's why i'm asking whether we're really talking about conduct and why if i stop every morning i have a habit of stopping every morning and praying on the edge of the new haven green whether that hasn't become a place of religious worship and therefore i'd be entitle to look to the statute to protect me against anyone who might assault me i see what what about your argument precludes that i suppose it's honor raises and i would just urge the court to the question before the court is the instant dispute and is very important in drawing those lines constitutional voice is very important in terms of place if you read out other places out or places it cetera  wary of that what would your what would your analysis be what would you propose if the place was not one where it's a single person stopped every day or occasionally to worship or on this day to worship but it was a place place of worship if they if the religion designates it and uses it as a place of worship then it should be protected and this is very important historically it's interesting in this case the rise in flushing the flushing remonstrance was a rebellion against this  persecution of what they called can vent ticals which is there any is there anything that you just have been using the word designated is there anything in the statute that uses that word where it says that they in organized religion has to designate statute uses the word place it does not use the word house it does not use the word religious real property it uses the word place it doesn't use the word facility and in fact if you look at the statute it has a carve out for the very situation that essentially free exercise of religion occurring outside of facilities outside of a reproductive health facility so by inference it otherwise could cover gatherings and places e all congress needs is a rational basis to conclude that a class of activities affect substantially affects interstate commerce we know from west and we know from grassy that violence at places of religious worship qualifies so we're sensually as judge walker pointed out we're talking about regulating access to to these places of religious worship the fact of a jurisdictional hook might make sense in context judge weinstein actually confirms the defendant's view that the more common threads reading a place of religious worship doesn't mean just anywhere but a place of religious worship as people commonly understand that to mean in bricks and mortar only conduct occurring on at or in the immediate vicinity of a place of religious worship such as a church synagogue or other structure or place used primarily for worship jury issues in my case there were thirteen plaintiffs the st few plaintiffs i deposed when i came back to the office my partner congratulated me because i got the plaintiffs to admit the truth when you're practicing to pick appendix  and seventy one of the plaintiffs in the early depositions before they were coached when you're practicing actually practicing failing gong isn't it the movements in the meditation answer yes but you're not doing that at the five tables at the five tables you're handing out materials you do the movements in the meditation in the spiritual center in the parts you're not doing that at the table right ms marsh objection answer at the table we pass out flyers we try to tell the truth of how the communist chinese communist party persecute the failing on practitioner we try to tell the truth about how the communist party harvests organs my question right but you don't do the meditation or the exercises that the five tables correct no we don't do the meditation a jury gets a chance there's a there's and there's more in our brief in our reply brief where i quote on page twenty six no no it's mainly for the word no no it's not mainly for worship no mostly the for distribution of our f brief we have tables and that's where we also have propaganda material they go on for months and years criticizing the chinese government and saying to chinese americans on main street that you're of a lower moral quality because you're brainwashed by the chinese government you need to convert the very insistent the very argumentative and it causes fights on the streets scuffles not nobody gets seriously hurt but they cause it they get the permits to do that it's not a place of religious worship and i should have the ability to put that evidence on and show them is marsh then took the later depositions and had those plaintiffs say well i'm internally meditating which a group of anti abortion protesters on the street could say they're meditating but if they're shouting at women on the