expressing my opinion and i've got a person member right to do that even if you think my opinion is outrageous and under claiborne's hardware even if my opinion advocates violations of law and that is first amendment launder claiborne's hard yet threat isn't imminent enough and then at the plaintiffs says we think you're you don't have any first amendment right to advocate violations of law because you're not just speaking as some guy you're speaking as a government official the chairman of the sac quasi governmental  neighborhood organization well he says i don't think i am i'm just some guy but if i lose on that if i really am the chairman of a quasi governmental  entitled to qualified immunity because i wouldn't necessarily have known that what i said which i don't agree with the plaintiffs i want i said is clearly violative of the constitutional rights only assuming that you didn't move for qualified immunity because you're contesting the agency and that after the after the there are two levels of immunity claim here at one level the plaintiff is saying key he said and as chairman of this government body to at deal with the neighborhood don't rent to black tennis while that's clearly the the government trying to undermine the constitutional and statutory rights of black people who want to rent in the neighborhood a the judge applies to cats as far as taking the facts most favorably to the plaintiffs to decide whether qualified immunity applies and says no reasonable government official could think had that the government could urge not running a black tents that struck me as pretty sensitive ab but the problem is he he says he doesn't he didn't say that kiki says i didn't say don't went to black tenants i just said don't rent to dope dealers and some kind of rehabilitation program members say and had nothing to do with don't want to black people and that it strikes me that the jury could say yeah we agree with kiki he wasn't using code words he just said what he meant meant what he said it wasn't racial at all and then i i don't know what does he have this if some kind of immunity defense or is it just a defense that isn't in the nature of immunity it certainly isn't immunity from suit qualified immunity from suit add that you analyze under catch and in the case is when the government actor who is conceivably government actor moves for qualified immunity from suit the idea was well it makes no sense to let the suit go forward and resolve it afterward like qualified immunity in this context because no one was given notice an opportunity to be heard in that order should be vacated i just don't think we have a record that we could actually go the other way i don't even know with the appellant and you are confessing error and that we should vacate the one and only order that's before us which is the in limon a order that preclude that would mean that they can raise qualified immunity a trial right and you agree that they can raise qualified immunity a trial with my own motion for playing for occasion you're not going to go get what i'm asking is are you going to go back to district court and file a new motion saying they can't raise qualified immunity a trial you know you're in agreement that they can reach a qualified immunity a trial to go back to square one is if he and i want to yes or no because i'm going to record here for us to