everybody had a pleasant holiday i'm going to call the cases as they appear on the calendar if you wish to reserve some time fine just keep track of your own time there's the clock affair and we start with  and wending their way to anaheim stadium and this is what the court says the test they apply and i'm reading from page ten forty five the test under california law is whether the communicative activity is basically incompatible with normal activity of a particular place at a particular time and this is what they say and they could be talking about our case but they're talking about there's the exterior walkways and parking areas of anaheim stadium that's what they're talking about are much like the parking lot  prison at all three locations the public is free to come and go just as we have the stadium and convention center at the stadium a convention center the public travels over the parking lot and walkways to attend sporting events or exhibitions that's exactly what we have unusual actually he walked over to the walkway started handing out flyers and i assume it was promoting the radio station i'm not sure what it was doing the main point is what he was doing was compatible with the area he was talking to people handing out hand out literature people want to talk with them they would talk with him so if that's all he wants to do he's not soliciting he's just promoting his first and his free speech idea exactly are you looking for he would like a right to walk around paul the parking lots the walkway and even the apron area as well as the fire line right now we have we have people walking there with a cowboy on stilts walking in a fire lan stopping people off in the fire lane i'm not clear why they allow that if the court will look for reasonable restrictions on what i would like is the court to say no this is unconstitutional you have to show you have to have reasonable restrictions if you're going to do these at all and this is my idea of reasonable restrictions first of all there's no reason to put any restrictions in the parking lots and in a walkway we have ten thousand people going to an area mr cooper handful of demonstrators would not change that what they could do and i believe this is reasonable the lower court was concerned that there would be hundreds of people in the lot and as a practical matter that's not what happen and the court hosking and said reasonable and objection objective limitations can be placed on the number of persons who can be present for first amendment activities that's a reasonable time place and manner struction the second restriction i think is reasonable we have this  congested and i would agree it would be reasonable not to allow a demonstrator there say fifteen minutes before show fifteen minutes after show those are to me reasonable restrictions and given the fact what they've shown what we have we have ten thousand people going back and forth on a given day we have already a man on stilts as i mentioned and this is this is crucial i guess i'll go right to the federal analysis let me just before you do the district court focused on the difference between persons who are painting of the facility and those who are not and i think she was she was concerned that what your client is to be allowed to do whatever everybody else does if they were in place and is that what you claim he's entitled to do well he's not looking to rent a particular spot which i don't know i'm those who are paying for a spot he has is that factually accurate that that's what he's seeking right he believes and the courts upheld this that he does not have to pay to exercise his first amendment rights if there was a problem if you don't know seeking to promote his ideas correct and a guy out there on the spill to do we know who hired him that we assume he's an ambient act part of the rodeo show and we assume that the rodeo shows paying a fee to use the that what the plaintiff here is asking is that he be given the same access to the facilities as those who are either employed by the defendant or who are making payments or some kind of some kind to the defendant is that's true they said that and i cited that in my brief and i can access things that quickly but you know i don't and the reason i didn't focus on that that much is because you have a commercial activity and the problem is you also have first amendment activity going on which doesn't interfere with that commercial activity this is the if his activities interfered with the commercial activity if you took away money from the cow palace  case and this is really the heart of the calculus and this is saying that there is congestion a safety problem that's what they're saying and what they say in their briefs the evidence shows the traffic at the cow palace is congested not allowing unbridled and unrestricted access by demonstrators in a parking area could impact an increase of congestion or reduce traffic safety these conclusions and what they based them on this is important are based on the observations of mr wagner who's the executive director and upon the i believe they're arguing they're going to focus on the commercial this and say that all that there's all this commercial stuff but it's time so you got side but i have a few responses first of all that's a small part of their income they only have a handful of commercial vendors in any given time they anaheim stadium they can come and say well because we have these commercial vendors here we're not going to allow a person to do his true speech activities you can say well it's a larger point than most of the area that we want something that you want to distribute  isn't that correct a perfect example is the walkway we have a walkway going from the upper lot straight to the cow palace which there's no evidence of congestion there's just people walking there there's absolutely no reason my client can't stand in that walkway and what they've done is they've stuck him in this little box what happens is you have the upper lot and you have these stairs that go down and then you have the walkway he's actually under the stairs in this little box where people come down they don't even notice he's there till they're there challenge is a facial challenge to this policy right unconstitutional or whether it's as applied in this particular kind as applied in this context i mean zones are allowed in other contexts i think they've been used in abortion cases in the bay area mean if they're going to have restrictions there were stretched tight restrictions i suggested they have to justify why they're not allowing my client on that walkway they have to justify why they're not allowing him in these giant parking lot  they will not run but they will rent to commercial vendors because their message makes the application not content neutral but again we're not challenging that at this point because we think that these  restrictions of the forum very quickly on the propriety of summary judgment we don't believe material facts are in dispute however the in all candor the grease filed by the appellant do raise certain factual issues which if this court finds constant material facts properly will then be remanded back to the district court since this is on a rule fifty six summary judgment motion on the nature of the form which really isn't important i'm sorry i just want well you just heard for example a don't think that's the bar the third item though is one of prior rentals and space and seniority rights if you will be given to those who run it before there may just not be room but it's never been tried so we don't know and that i think is a fair reading of the record as to to the public forum justice and i believe that there is no dispute per se but there is a sliding scale under state law and this is not in the calculus is never stated otherwise the traditional public forum such as streets and sidewalks now what's interesting is that judge wilkinson the district court applied the test of time place manner as if this were a traditional public form that was an error we meet that higher standard but we were suggesting in arguing is that under state law which you certainly apply first you look at a sliding scale of public for was streets and sidewalk on one end and this courtroom for example on the other side of public own property and determine first of all where is this public career mr google is free to do what he wishes to do without restriction at all along geneva ave but within the property in three currently designated three zones which he refuses to abide by and includes handing out leaflets whenever he wishes to do careerists i cannot find in your opinion any discussion as to circulation issues or safety issues which are either raised or decided or central to the holding other issues are raised and rejected i think quite rightfully as not being a reason for significant governmental interest on those after that absolute ban of any first amendment activity those are two very very different situations then placed here here as in half ron we have a much i think closer match with the situation  calculus is commercial that includes the parking lot and i mildly disagree with your characterization that while the commercial areas are in one part of the exterior and the noncommercial in others there is no such distinction secondly there are no walkways common sense when you receive a leaflet i've observed mr cooper and others passing out leaflets within the zone you take the leaflet you look at the leaflet you almost stop to see what it is you either give it back or you take it with you or you discard it later on there is a difference between what the the difference is mr mr blatter has touched on this there is a zone one walkway that goes from the upper lot to the front door it's a straight shot one hundred percent of those people must pass by this and it is a small box by this area and are by it you cannot avoid walking by it mr cooper in fact that box has been moved and that's in the record up halfway up that walkway into a space in the preferred lot at the request of not me but other similar activities to try to increase the visibility the only walkway therefore has reasonable access to it now the south parking lot they did an experiment where they had a line of protesters they didn't tell them where to stand they just allowed them to stand where they wanted it leafleting just to see what happened and it did result in delays and congestion and it did result in problems and that is the testimony refuted mr waiter so this is not something that is speculative or just made up or a concern out of thin air there is legitimate  concerns that circulation of traffic would be impeded secondly in terms of the forum it is a commercial forum to allow mr cuba free access to space that others pay for similar if not identical activities regardless the content wa commercial purposes only paid speech for both in other words we don't distinguish in the paid speech part you can buy a spot well it isn't just restricted of commercial record on that question but i am at least but i tend to agree with you i think that  perhaps the only weakness i can see in the guidelines is that maybe we cannot prevent free commercial access within the guidelines and that of course raises a different problem that mr cooper is not the only person who benefits from a change in the regulations for example if we have a dodge dealer and this is quite accurate representation who rents the preferred lot to you to show his new trust of people who go into the calculus well why not have a four person show up for free and pass out leaflets under the guise of the first amendment and that's undercut the commercial viability that would become the most and subject matter regulation which is a very very high standard that's one of the concerns i think the calculus head and saying it is incompatible to allow anyone free access to space that is rented or rent shows or other purposes where they actually do displays outside as well on occasion so i reject it with all due respect any kind of a differential between one part of the external area around it and another all are capable of and are rendered on different occasions and it's a very very different animal than apparently the anaheim factual situation but isn't it true that somebody who is using the cow palace for commercial purpose has allowed more latitude in the exteriors and somebody who isn't running space on the inside and actually justice no and i'll tell you why you noticed that in mentioning the radio station the still and the dutch place they are not roaming all over the area because the same with the purpose of the count house which is a commercial venture not a debating area of the same name their advertising time and it was no it was it was actually providing aspace for the rodeo it was also covering the rodeo as part of the space program contents a little in both and that's the you know the the covering problem country western show radio station right i believe it was taking a wild guess i don't think it was a heavy metal radio  requests which sound very reasonable let me just wander in the walkways of which of course is only one and pass out these materials must be open to all regardless of content which is the position we take what happened and that's exactly what the supreme court said it has wrong zone near geneva avenue and everyone who parks for free on public streets must walk through this gate avenue there's a zone right there course is also the public sidewalk retreats one hundred percent of all people entering the  not constitutionally protected per say first amendment activity is the second zone which is the one underneath the staircase reaches one hundred percent of the people coming off of the parking lot and going to the front door to the south is along the south parking lot which takes up one parking space is a problem it's been moved trying to reach people better and that's because of the chaotic nature of the parking lot there only slightly shallow sixteen the chart because that cuts off most of the area but here you have thousands of cars hundreds of people right before a performance and afterwards streaming into the cow palace and then coming back out after a performance in a chaotic manner and the concern of the count palaces it's bad enough as it is there are no walkways in that south zone until you get to the very part of the cow palace in which case there's a fire line and some designated process walkways there so to places own and we have tried to move them even to the side of the building which protesters have not found to be acceptable to reach those people is almost impossible so the best we can offer in the guidelines allow is for mr goulet to wander  we believe that the reason why i don't say that again these results how did they measure the results they measure the results based upon the observation and the comments of patrons and wasn't the complaint of patrons about the content it was rather you know i had to run a gauntlet to get in here i had you know i couldn't get by people passing me things and i did look at it those sort of thing also the observation of the staff that was there on site and the flow of people and the and that and the peace of people as they try to get through and in the area along by the driveway they were actually along one of the langs so they could reach people as they wandered in and they were not there restricted to any you know one every five feet but i don't believe they were congregated per say and i believe number i want to just throw all over the place they were they were allowed to but they we requested that they try to stay for safety reasons within that line so that people who had to go to the front doors which is everyone who saw a lot had to go by them we said rather than just kind of wander willy nilly through the parking lot let's try to have a line where you can stand and reach people on each side as they come by you because i have to pass by you and i believe they were about eight to ten but i don't have it in the record i don't have a an exact number for and it did result in problems and did result in increased congestion and of course that's an active parking lot with driving and children and it just is not a good idea to have distractions and that's why we believe the regulations which do not prohibit free speech feet from the zone it's at the widest of that that walkway it's impossible not to see people and not to accept a leaflet if you wish and i see people getting leaflets there rather routinely we felt that we had to put a trash can right next to it because a lot of people wanted to start the leaflet and we don't want to litter and then only the discarded but the protesters recycle which we are certainly in favor of i'm a little confused about when you use one hundred percent of the people you're using one hundred percent of the people from a certain parking right now what about one hundred percent of the people who find their way into the building the only way you could do that would be to have a phalanx of protesters along the front doors of the building and even that won't work because on the side doors can be opened sometimes of the lobby so you have to have people around the side as well so each time you use the number one hundred percent you're talking about one hundred percent of some fraction are one hundred percent of somebody's coming from some and i didn't mean to imply otherwise it's one hundred percent of the our lot one hundred percent of the pedestrian traffic that maybe not be anywhere near one hundred percent of those patrons and even if you had a person in each of those three places simultaneously you wouldn't necessarily reach clear what's going on here cal palace does not like my client's message my client is opposed to the rodeo he wants to spread that message they don't like it everything else is just a justification for suppressing it as much as they think they can get away with now before i talk to the placement of the boxes and i don't want to spend much time there because we're claiming they're unconstitutional in the first place they have not explained why my client and a few other demonstrators with a limited number can walk around the lots and walkways they haven't explained it there's no reason they do this experiment of course that's the court in figure could put its weight on that we have someone from the cow palace saying oh we did this experiment and we believe three and might stop section two we already talked about this right under the stairs people can see it section one no one can see that only people who are coming from off the off the premises so we have you have to think of better drivers than a drive stairs they're looking smaller there's all this excitement and then right over there there's this little box with people saying oh you want to leave it it's hardly adequate there's no reason my client can't roam stand on the top of the stairs why would that not be allowed then t when the government seeks to introduce extra evidence that crucial determination the district court must make