good morning and a a plea for the court my name is jeff nguyen and i'm a certified law student from the university of california irvine school of law my partner's name is eric hoffer sen and we are under the supervision of professor paul hoffman with the quote from mission we would like to  three minutes of our time for rebuttal yes and mark your clock camps down i will begin by discussing the district court's decision to deny and jump to the declaratory relief on mr it allots first amendment retaliation claim the district court's and the missile of unserved london's mistreat a lot is a long standing resident of the town of skykomish he has been retaliated against for the lawful exercise of his first amendment rights mr ate a lot is currently and always has been a whistleblower committed to challenging corruption in the town and holding public officials accountable for their misdeeds the town of town is a very small less than two hundred people where everyone knows and has heard of mr ed a lot and his commitment to justice in fact based on the result of the petition to disclose finances that mr it a lot had submitted to the washington public disclosure commission in two thousand and six in two thousand and eleven the washington superior court held that numerous town officials had indeed violated the municipal officers code of ethics as a result of this and other efforts by mr eat alot to root corruption the town he has been repeatedly retaliated against put briefly mr ada lots of dinny and garage were destroyed following his decision to file a complaint to the washington public disclosure commission his fence was destroyed and his property was trust passed upon following his request for disclosure of merit riders finances and connections to the bee and as a frail way and he had his first amendment rights violated by being forced to remove lawful political fines from display on his property despite this the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants summary judgment was improper  amendment retaliation claim because the district court failed to address mr ed a lot of requests for injunctive and declaratory relief mr ate a lot at that time was a pro se plaintiff and the court should have construed his complaint liberally in his complaint he clearly requests for injunctive relief to be free from a tally ation from harassment and from being having his property trust passed upon similarly he clearly seeks declaratory relief requesting that the employees of the town be held responsible for the adopted policy second by a longstanding practice or custom and third by the decision of a person with policy final policy making authority in this case mr a lot has clearly established that  longstanding custom of retaliating against them and committing first amendment violations under this court's decision in web the sloan the question of whether a policy or custom exists is a jury question here mr eight a lot of do sufficient evidence of retaliation for the exercise of his first amendment rights standing over the course of over ten years so what was the first exercise of his first amendment rights that we're talking about was it the request for greater for his financial records no in this case for my no liability we are looking at a broader timeline including the previous mayor so we would go all the way back to say two thousand and six and before even when he was making requests in the petition to the washington public disclosure commission so even beginning all the way back then up until now and when was that the petition was filed in two thousand and six two thousand and six yes ok so as you can see the instances of retaliation were committed not only during the most recent mayall administration but even prior talking about a the first one we're mentioning in this case is going to be when he had his he was threatened at a town council meeting and he had his  town yes he was successful in finding the corruption in that case the washington superior court held in his favor news of that and his whistle blower uncovering corruption ways was passed along through the town because it is a very small town fewer than two hundred people his reputation precedes him he has been a thorn in the side of the town since two thousand and six and everyone knows and therefore there has been a decade long campaign grider on the basis of qualified immunity that's one of your issues yes ok so and so what are you arguing that there's a genuine issue of disputed fact here that should have precluded summary judgment while this is in regard to municipal liability ok so now you're not talking about the mayor alone you're talking about the town yes ok with regard to diminish the liability doesn't appear that the mayor has the final policymaking authority what's your theory there and how is that supported by the evidence in the record so  executive and administrative officer of the city in charge of all departments and employees here she still see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that the law and order is maintained in the city therefore it is clear under state law that the mayor is given  accountable here acted signs on his private property that detail the ways he felt the current government was failing for example his signs accused defendants of caring more about the railroad than the children of scott coleman reiterated his belief that the town should be unincorporated and promised that he would not be silent on these issues moving forward the defense reacted the same way they had any other time a straight a lot of searches constitutional right to speech they attempted to silence him and pressure him to remove the signs this issue presents the intersection of two of this country's most long respected rights from their own home however the district failed to protect mr it allots rights and should be reversed on this by this court on this issue for two reasons first the district court erred in only considering this or ada lots of claim regarding his signs as part of his first amendment retaliation claim the defendants efforts to regulate and control these signs was one example of official retaliation against mr eat a lot speech this issue also involves direct regulation of that speech and therefore also presents a independent and free standing first minute claim rate a lot worse requested equitable relief to prevent the defendant from continuing to constrain his right to speech the court below failed to respond to these requests and never conducted the analysis of this free standing first amendment issue as a result of courts of reverse counsel there's a case right now before the supreme call called most men versus city of i think it's riviera beach and it's a first amendment retaliation case involving an individual in the town who has been alleging a conspiracy in a sense by the town officials to go get him seems to me there are a lot of parallels between lowe's men and this case and would it make sense for this court to wait to receive the decision loz men maybe ask the parties for their views on those men before rendering a final decision here well that might that might be appropriate on the first that retaliation side of this particular claim as i was just stating there is a separate free standing first for the sign was signed part of the case correct well they're they're related in a sense because it's the same action by the defendants and we think that their efforts to constrain his ability to speak on these signs is one example of retaliation but because it's such a direct regulation of his political speech we think it also raises a very clear first amendment claim that is separate that was not addressed by the district court but if we were to wait for the lawyers the decision i just want to see what the register would be to your client is there any reason why there has to be a decision in this case in the next three weeks for the supreme court presumably wonder in secession and those men i'm not aware of any of any prejudice that would result from that three week ban what i would say that mr a lot would be very interested and the very least getting some sort of equitable relief to protect his ability to speak in the future and one of the reasons this is important and one of the other reasons that that this court should reverse is because the analysis can talk that by the district court on that first memory retaliation claim was also flawed in the way that it relied appropriate especially in light of the the dual nature of the sign can claim i think it's it's reasonable once again to consider the first amendment claim separately and then if there is a reason to hold the retaliation claim i think that there could be appropriate thank you very much john so position is in starting out clarification for clarification purposes the retaliate first amendment retaliation claim and first of all let me back up to step my comments of the the recent graduates are doing a fine job before the panel this morning  however first a member retaliation claim has to be based on actual actual retaliatory violence of of someone's first amendment rights so all the football though the facts you claim may be similar there's really no evidence linking the activity we're talking about in this particular case to prohibiting or limiting his first amendment right to speak out about what he felt about the government and keep in mind as as a gesture toward bob pointed out this all occurred to me back in two thousand and six when a washington a public disclosure request was made because burlington northern santa fe railroad had conducted a major cleanup of the town of spec home which is real road we're going through that property leaving a lot of oil and debris on the property and now ok we're going to little feedback that's why can i still hear us ok i want to make sure i can hear the kids can you hear me right now i can hear you right now ok thank you so when those issues were were raised as to whether or not the the santa fe railway settlement for having to relocate certain properties so that they could do this massive environmental cleanup which was a federal requirement in addition to a state requirement mr i lock question what things were being done and when your honor asked the question did the lower court the king county superior court find that the prior mayor and city council had somehow violated or taking kickbacks that's not the case at all and that's a mischaracterization of the record what happened was the court found that under a statute the elected body the city council including the mare should not have been the wanted to decide their own individual  fe for moving their property or altering their property so they paid a legislative fine for that but as far as the overall cleanup and and that it had been had to have been done and was not an issue in any way shape or form el light's role in this well his role was he was a resident and he was upset that these that town cleanup was taking place and he was upset that certain officials were what he felt were helping burlington northern santa fe and the cleanup and he had some strong feelings which i'm to this day not really clear what they are but he asked for a public disclosure as to what sort of remuneration the property owners who are also the elected officials had received from burlington northern and that's a perfectly legitimate request and that was made but to go from that in two thousand and six and you're correct in reading a stash limitations issue say that's an ongoing pattern of behavior you raise the issue we raise allegations are that it continued in a slam that point of time and it's difficult to see how it could be continuing when you have a whole new legislative body in place from when the federal lawsuit was filed from when the public disclosure in king county superior court decision were rendered with regard to the enforcement of the regulations about the signs is there any indication evidence in the record that the mayor attempted to or did enforce those regulations on other people there isn't any in this particular record but i don't believe it was an enforcement of the signs other than to say some of the signs around the property some of the signs were not on the property and it was simply request that when if you have signs you need to put up or you need to pay for that particular sign with your honor i would i would caution that that's an issue being raised for the first time that that somehow that sign ordinance legitimate position that mr i lot had that certainly could have brought that through just through the due process procedure the town has in place bringing that up with a building inspector pointing out what his position that the signs are covered getting a ruling there if  member retaliatory claim the elements of that are very clear but there isn't any evidence in the record as to what specific action in enforcing that the right of way if you can't park in the middle of the street you can't  signs in the middle of the street enforcing those legislative police powers and suggestion you can't do those things is not a prohibition against his first amendment right to speak out well that's why i asked about the evidence in the record suggesting enforcement with regard to other people as well because they claim is a claim to be protected from retaliation by exercising your first amendment right and so if there's evidence for example that enforcement isn't even in that someone was targeted with violations of codes that aren't a quick will that aren't forced on anyone else reading obscure regulations that's never been  enforced those kind of things could lead to a pattern of behavior that at least would create trouble issues for trial and that's why i was asking about whether there's evidence of even enforcement i agree with you your hon or and there is no evidence of that in the record at all simply the actually is complaining of or limited to action valving mr mr i live in other words that there were there wasn't any evidence that they were pulling out of your readings of ordinances there was disobey disagreement of right away boundary that you can't park your car in the middle of the street and that is a legitimate concern telling someone that you can't do that is not related in any way in any reasonable way you know under reasonable inf is that he wasn't allowed to park in a particular place but the person across the street was allowed to park over the line and that person happened to be related to a member of either the city council or the mayor himself i believe those are just allegations of any substantive backing in the record ok that's what i thought his clean lines well i think it's claim was he saying that you're retelling retaliating against me for what i'm doing but he doesn't link it as as your honest question was to other citizens are being treated differently this is a very specific thing on the record about the person's car cross the street i'm quite certain well if i can step back one thing judge glass nick i think did an admirable job in trying to put together what was the operative a mini complaint in this case from all of the allegations or grant that are being made and the facts that were ruled on by this by the just record i think are the facts that are your limits too in your decision and just last night didn't come up with anything to suggest that any of those things raise a factual question it was just there wasn't really the point i was attempting to make your honour's that for the record judge to ferret through all of that information to come out with these are the causes of action a conspiracy first amendment retaliation violation is a credit to the court and to take that much effort and time looking at that record as extensively as the court did he's not able to link any retaliation based on the facts that mr i love just throwing out there to violate the first amendment and that were there is just is no nexus other than pure allegations that there was somehow treatment violates his first amendment rights that the town and the other thing that's confusing and it is a very confusing record the other thing is when the fire damage to his property there were some signs around that property that had to be removed the property had had to be leveled because of posing a public safety danger public health danger and some of those signs iran there in those photographs were actually on the property that had to be raised so those signs that the removal of those signs is not prohibiting or chilling his right to speak out as he sees fit under the first amendment is simply those signs are gone because that property had to be leveled and he had it's his due process rights to go through the process of saying whether that needed to be done or didn't need to be done so that that's where the record is very somewhat confusing but i don't think that the has shown this court any connection between the allegations and how that is a retaliatory act against any first amendment right he has to have science he's just simply enforcing parking codes enforcing a disputed right of way that you can't park in melissa treat and i don't see the connection your honor between anyone else being treated differently than mr i had a lot is just him thinking this is retaliation because way back in  but there's also the october there's also the october twelfth incident where mr l light as mayor grider about his work at burlington a right of way issue it was putting warnings on that you can't park in the middle of the street and wish it was asking to defense be removed if you don't remove it the town will under its police powers if it's parked in the middle of the street and the photographs if you're right your honor very clear that that that is a paved right of way and there's a boundary dispute as to what's there but to say that those actions that you can't park street are somehow tied to him speaking out against the government of the politician i think i just too too much of a leap of faith to say that violates the constitution and there just isn't any connection there than the allegation council we get a couple of these cases every year where you have usually a man's man in town man does not get along with the people who are in charge of the town people corps in charge of town don't get along with the man he's not going anywhere this town is not going anywhere i'm wondering if you would think mediation of some force some form in this court would be perhaps the best solution then to kind of keep he says been lost since two thousand and six keep marching down this path and we don't want you back here in twenty thirty but think of these cases tend to hang around for a long time even thought about having mediation in this court your own impression law for thirty years alternative dispute resolution is always a good alternative when there are disputes the town as they call it i don't think would be opposed to that in any way shape or form the issue is when you have very active and zealous pro se plaintiffs and that's not a criticism mr iott a lot whether a mediation resolve some of these issues if it is a fine suggestion the challenge we willing to do that whether that would be adhered to or there's another amendment in the sign issues and as far as a temporary restraining order injunctive relief at this point i think those are more or less the types of relief he wants if the summary judgment is not a firm which with all due respect it should be a  firm but the temporary restraining order again was analyzed properly that if you were not likely to prevail on your nine hundred eighty three claims you know get injunctive relief but if you go through the trial process then whatever relief he's looking for could be attempted at that point there are three primary points points we'd like to make on the bottle first in terms of the first amendment retaliation lacking causation that opposing counsel mentions in this case there is a whole set of town actions and this court has stated and bruce lee yesterday that proximity in time supports an inference that motive was unconstitutional retaliation and in this case it was basically a  and gauged first amendment speech he was soon after retaliated against in a variety of different ways by a variety of different employees of the town next with result with fourteen and two fifty you can see that he clearly raises the issue of the sign ordinance being improperly applied against him and again i'd like to mention that at the time he was a pro se plaintiffs of the court should read his out his allegations liberally  next regarding discriminatory enforcement of the signs on e r ninety one to ninety five mr eight a lot shows that his next door neighbor directly across neighbor miss child is parked on her have he does present evidence of unequal application of town laws lastly with regard to causation for first amendment retaliation  allegations as true during the motion for summary judgment stage and in this case mr eight a lot has clearly alleged many statements of fact regarding the improper the evidence of improper motives and lastly with regards to our request for reconsideration of injunctive relief that is completely separate from and subsumes mr ada lotsa original request for a temporary restraining order again at the time he was a and was not asking for that was asking for that relief additionally but it is completely subsumed by our request for injunctive relief thank you i don't think the u c irvine school of law and its students and professor hoffman for an excellent argument and thank you to mr mcmahon and for your willingness to participate in mediation