layers just red shield that you got the district court to say those are the only two things your client is being held accountable for those two sentences and so the isn't the only issue is the ease of one of those sentences violate don't care about the context of your guy's not being held liable for the context he's not being held liable for any other word period kamari thing that article there is just too quoted sentences and the judge is restricted that the agreement says that nothing in it will be construed as a violation of it he would have been disclosing the term but he didn't say that you can say i'm he's a lot like he's not specifically a made the statements are quoted in the article but we do know the findings below were not predicated on him providing some information to the article it was predicated on the only finding of fact that you have to stand on is that he said the two sentences the judge turned away or read shortly so it seems to us on the violation issue that before us the only question is is there anything in either one of those two sentences that discloses a term or condition of the settlement agreement and i couldn't find in your brief and i would like her to know here what is in those two sentences that violates that discloses which term  which there's a finding that someone's rights have been violated but there's no liability because of the immunity defenses that people have so their liability in violation and civil rights are occasional two entirely different concepts although you can't have the every private action or civil rights violation against public officials and that's what this is yes or no if you just listed the elements the court has to find one is that there was a violation of the rights this recognized the violation of rights there's nothing in the agreement that says that if anything it's a mischaracterization of the agreement not a disclosure of the terms of the agreement and in any event the agreement doesn't discus fire you agree he didn't use the word liability he did not use the word liability and if he had used the word liability it would not have been a disclosure of the term condition it would have been an inaccurate description of  it would be it wouldn't be you know it would be if he admitted in the article that there was no emission of liability that would be something that would be a mischaracterization of the right it would be a disclosure but he didn't do that he didn't do the opposite it was suppose he said to the press that under the agreement the government agreed to pay twenty million dollars would that be a violation yes it would be let's stay with my point my point is if he had said the agreement provides that the government pays two hundred million dollars you agree that would not have been a disclosure of a term and condition of the  ever see now you've broadened the language and we're talking about a first and we're talking about a prior restraint on speech don't we have to be very precise yes your honor that we don't broadly construe an order in you've got a narrow order here which you simply don't disclose the current condition so you've got to show not that he missed describe the agreement but that he actually disclosed the turning condition i don't think you misread of the agreement he implicitly re what had been done by law enforcement collectively was so bad that throughout criminal convictions widespread public all in the public domain you don't have a suit and then there's a settlement and the the government wants to settlement confidential and insist on a confidential well what person reading all of that doesn't think that the government paid a bunch of money because it had some exposure and so to then go you're going to bring in the order of powers of the federal court to have a gag order on someone saying what is entirely obvious to virtually every citizen of puerto rico i'm just mystified as to what the government's doing with these that the facts related to the criminal case not be disclosed we're talking about the each the confidentiality should matter and it's not the criminal or the facts related to the criminal case and i believe that