your argument any way you like but having already sat through one argument then i will i'll do the stance that from my point of view not speaking from the little fan off of there are a few issues that i would appreciate if you'd be able to address objectives of the government or in light of the objectives of legitimate sectors of the government and the other issue is whether in your position there were ample channels for alternative speech and you know then in addition to that i don't mean to foreclose you from arguing that it's not content neutral if you want to nor do we want to foreclose you from from raising anything about whether apart from formal policy something else was going on that raises an issue of fact that has to be reviewed as applied or some implied policy and then also if you go address doubt that they have please the court steve permanently have the plaintiffs i guess i'd like to start with one of the picture point before we get to the questions that you asked i'm here because i represent a proposed class of about four hundred people who were to what mr boxset sitting peacefully in a public park four blocks away from the convention center where the delegates were housed they were doing nothing wrong there was no violence in the city of seattle at the time they were arrested and there was delegates as we heard this morning that's not borne out by the facts in this record that there were four or five blocks from the delegates when they were arrested right like to start is with your questions about collins jet school because when i took this case i'll be frank i believe i took the case because i thought collins was going of course and i still do and i want to address your exceptions that they know it you know i didn't say that they made those exceptions but they reserve yes they did reserve those and i think the first question is whether we're within the parameters of those reservations and i don't think we are and here's why first they said we didn't address the question of whether there is if there is widespread continuing violence there could be a different rule stakes in this case in terms of the persons who could be harmed are much broader than the count well i would answer that truthful one is i believe that that's an issue of fact for the trier of fact but that it wasn't just isolated incidents of violence that doesn't seem from the record that it can be contested that there was a breakdown of order on the streets of seattle but i think you can because if you look at the r three six x it's the police after action report it says that there's a disparity between how many people were actually violent the a c l u observers say there were several dozen because my clients who were sitting peacefully in that park why would you be arresting them there's no evidence no record that they had to get the people behind them that they were interfering with law enforcement activities what about the fact though that these people are relatively s was it was frankly a little disarming thing here and they didn't even try to see whether those that knew troops could handle the situation they just shut it down that's the gay the president was arriving right that's correct and it was a state route with the there was no what have to say you know this is not as bad as we thought it was going to be which is really what happened here they didn't say now we're going to open up a narrow avenue for people to be able to get access to the delegates now we're going to change this protest zone so people on you find you need to modify the security zone either greater or lesser you know you can do that and by inference i think that given the protections that are afforded here they have to do that that leads me to trust your second question is whether the policies left open reasonable alternatives and i think the answer to that is a resounding no on your two cases united states versus bar and the bay area peace made a case because those cases have at their heart he's still going to one principle of law is that what's important is the speaker can reach his or her quote intended audience from the imposed distance there's no question here so your argument is that your clients aren't satisfied with communicating with the world via media or with the city of seattle citizenry or the federal or state officials they want to present their points to the b t o and well yes and there's reasons for that if the media was a forum that was available that was the answer to these situations and there would never be a need to have protesters allow them in public forums that the tradition that a lot of the city could always say we don't have to open up just go to the news media i think that would be a shocking to parchin from our freshmen of course but it's not always  alternatives some of these people if they went outside the zone to protest they were arrested so it wasn't like there were archives at reasonable alternatives now to address your question about whether because of exemption circumstances it's enough for the city to say go to the media i think howard says no and there's no precedent for the suggestion that you can close our because you're anticipating violence close up that traditional first amendment forum and sent people to find a media outlet know as if they're even going to have a media outlet it's different if i'm just one of my clients for example schoolteacher she wanted to go see what was happening out here so she could tell a class she can have access to the media or she can r things that your school pointed out one if there is continue with violence which there was no evidence that there was in this case and two is the reliable intelligence evidence that there might be violent activity and there's no evidence in the record  nation that organized violence of the serious nature is about to occur that's right and there's nothing in the record to suggest then what happened the first day the reliable evidence that would be predictive about what might occur in the future absolutely change now because if that were the case then the college case would not have come out the way it did and how is what you're saying is they could have looked at day one and said that's intelligence that's going to happen and they don't have the column you know the forest case the government relies on is so different from this because neither of those cases argued by both sides really tell us what to do here well then it seems to me the answer is and picking up on your question if if that's the record form of person in terms of exclusion and that was anyone who was protesting the w t o and as you've heard the evidence was summarized earlier this morning that if you were black if you had a side you were excluded now that's is that evidence that the police were acting in a reasonable manner that there were there are reasons that you have to decide you know one by one arrest and that there was no policy to arrest everyone because they're wearing a button and we think we've put enough evidence in that there's no genuine issue of fact on that but the city says it to the contrary so there might be a genuine issue fact i don't really believe that that's the case with the significance if any of the fact in the record and there's nothing in the record to suggest that was going on in their shells microchip joiners money time because they were trying to protect the president the only thing that's in the record justifying this emergency order is that they were they were questions because and this may be something that we have to explore further if there's agreement it's been my experience and you've said it right and i actually got to ride with president clinton once and serviced it would you land this city in this the government is completely out of it the secret service doesn't want the city to be responsible for the president's safety the president's people are responsible for his present safety so i think that the issue of the president safety was being taken care of by the president and his people  anarchy and breakdown of order as it relates to people who want to be downtown the delegates to the convention the whole life of the city and that that's at least a major significant government interest whether the interests and protest are paramount to all the interests of the life of the city you know that might be a strong first amendment position but it might not carry the day  and trying to figure out what to do so maybe day one they oversweet and they realize you know we will little too far things are pretty quiet which they were by day two or three others no process so there's no support there's no intelligence there's no violence with in the case far away they didn't even try to do that in opposition to the city's motion for summary judgment and you argue that there were tribal issues the fact on merit and we argued in our papers yes thank you very thank you assume that's content neutral was there an issue factor that was nearly feel or is there an issue of fact whether there were alternative ample alternative means of communication what's the significance of that you know anarchy or chaos or ignore everything that we put in the record there is absolutely nothing on the other hand from the plan to say on thursday december second and friday december third there was no violence around the w t l because if they said that it wouldn't be right so as far as that's concerned no there's no issue attack now on either material issues of disputed fact with regard to whether this is narrowly tailored i crewed mr berman there aren't any everybody knows exactly what happened out there we know where the perimeter of the zone was we know how it was staffed we know what happened around zone a lot about whether we're there reaches the fact where there's some other kind of configuration a lot of you know provided security with a different level of communication from it your honor that is not this court's decision to make the supreme court has said that under the content neutral task it need not be the least restrictive it needs only be something that advances the government's legitimate interest that would not be advanced without the restriction that's in turner versus the f c c and a number of other cases so i think again let's take a look at what the case law from the supreme court the ninth circuit said about these issues first of all this idea th columns prohibits you from doing anything based upon violence the day before if that's the case how does the supreme court ok hill versus colorado where the statutory scheme was based soley upon the assumption that the abortion protesters were going to continue very illegal of fact that's not what concepts what collins says this you can't ban all protests in the entire city and county of san francisco soley because they were isolated incidents of violence the day before what constance they is if you've got substantial violence the day before if you've got intelligence suggests that tens of thousands of people are going to continue to come downtown and attempt to strike down the deputy you know if you've got evidence that people are not able to get to their work can't get to their doctor's offices can't pick up their kids from day care that you can't do that that's not what columns to us all it says is if you're only basis is a few acts of violence today before you can close the entire city of san francisco to say anything more about collins is to read a completely out of guess there were the hotels and they were at the convention center that's right if you take the perimeter and sort of sort of look at it carefully what's the i think state on this and outside the perimeter close to the perimeter what's the closest of the park well it's changed since then they've built some things around that it's the freeway park and on the east side is the freeway part parking garage and demonstrators could obligation in first amendment jurisprudence in this country that a person be allowed to go to these specific person they want to talk to and talk to them face to face the abortion rights protests cases give the buffer zones of one hundred feet until as far further away from the convention then the convention center and the sidewalk or in this case they didn't have the right to go in there and talk to them on face to face the service employees versus los angeles another excellent case that was the democratic national committee convention case down at the staples center in of the convention center which runs on the east side and out of the south side it's about seventy five yards long there are doors all the way down and if you do a straight line across the street and try to put four hundred people on the sidewalk that is seventy five yards long i think you could do it ok they might be tight and that if people go in that garage sometime or if you pull into the garage there's a little entrance into the garage you go in a garage you go you know run around up to a certain floor and then you don't go back walking out that entrance to cross the street you you know you go across that you are up there you enter the building that way right so where w people see these protesters is when they're if they're being driven up to that right well as they're walking back and forth within the convention center that's all glass wall so they can see them certainly there they can see them they're coming out of their hotels because they're right across the street from their hotels they can see them when they're going into the paramount which was other another major venue for the detail meetings and in that case they worked directly across they were allowed  far from pine is there any interest to the convention center and on pine on pike i'm sorry the only side of the convention center that cannot be access that i'm aware of is the side that's bounded by the eagles auditorium so that would be the west side you can get in the north east and south side now i think it's important john that we're talking about whether it's narrowly tailored whether there are ample alternative means service employees versus los angeles dealt with this exact same thing that's why i keep wanting to come back to the democratic national committee committee where convention was meeting your messages on eight million square feet around the staples center there was one entrance into the staples center and the designated protest some was two hundred sixty yards away from it needless to say the ninth circuit or the judge in that case didn't like that  i'm not always a two hundred sixty yards away but you've got the whole media camp between the protest area and where they go in but the court also said there is no question that you can set up a zone to allow the delegates safely to enter in the downtown hotels via large and since the hotels every one of them except one wasn't bordered by the zone by the city's intent they wanted to get protesters close enough that their message could be heard the people have the opportunity it's there's no disputed fact or your honor at this point it becomes a legal issue the first b case is a great example ban on residential picketing it's a ban on residential picketing the supreme court upheld it now let's just say that there are reasonable alternatives that would be less restrictive than a complete ban on residential picketing in the courts said there may have ben i mean all they have to show is that yet achieved the goal of ending the evil that or that it wouldn't have if they hadn't put the restriction in place how can this court then come back when the city took such great pains to get people to where they could actually be within voice contact of delegates recognizing they don't have any right to go often and shout something in their face that's never been  guaranteed right as i think you well you know what you're saying is that they could have done it and it gets rough the whole town and as they entered the paramount which was a significant venue as they entered the convention center any time they were on the sidewalk i don't like there are only t fallacy your point i agree with you completely on this part of problem columns you know because i've been content neutral and had then over a couple block area it would've been a very different case than if you declared forty six point nine square miles of san francisco off limits to protest they certainly squelch the evil they were concerned about along with a number of other evils but compare that compare the zone here this gerrymandered mass with and remember keep in keep you have to keep in mind what's going on you've got a limited number of police officers to maintain the perimeter so it can't be something that is that the perimeter is ten miles long because you're weaving in and out around every building and you expect the police department to have  enough officers there to stop active protest groups who are coordinated by walkie talkies and telephones that's in the record whenever they see an opening they get on the phone get a hold of somebody who's got the other group and pretty soon you've got a whole mass of people going to the weak so that's part of what the court has to consider the city still went out of its way to give people the opportunity to get close to these delegates in the only way they could physically do it and maintain some semblance of order in the c and your honor there is no way that we can justify calling this not narrowly tailored if you look at any of the other case law like you know one hundred feet away from an abortion clinic there were ten thousand people in front of that abortion clinics clogging the streets walking that emergency vehicles preventing people from getting their kids a day care there were a few rowdy protesters who were trying to keep people from going into the clinic and one hundred feet was approved by the supreme court with no evidence that anybody there ever been hurt no evidence of property been destroyed how do you justify this claim that it's not that it's not legitimate or narrowly drawn when you look at those feet very which is the supreme court case that set up a five hundred foot perimeter around foreign embassies and the courts said it's legitimate for the city to say three or more people cannot assemble and go into that to protest in front of an embassy the supreme court said that's ok five hundred feet is a lot further than across the street and there was no evidence that there been any violence no evidence that there was a threat to the embassy personnel no evidence that life was not going on as people usually lived it in that area so if all those kinds of things are you can you do not take my time one million fifty six seconds this idea that certain people were allowed in and others were not is an absolute red herring take anything i challenge you find any case where the supreme court has said some restriction is ok and find people who were not allowed in or people that were allowed in versus people who were not take hill obviously the patients were allowed  patients allowed in take the service employees the people at the democratic national convention were allowed in as were workers as were their staff as were media that was ok and any case fails because some people were allowed in that were necessary for the for the ongoing function of the of this part of the city then the supreme court has been wrong a lot of times unless you live there work there have legitimate business to do according to the business of the city i mean having deja vu all over this thing here just don't think your argument to be concluded thank you mr berman if you need a minute of rebuttal will give it to access to and from the areas on the sidewalk as i read the maps but more importantly many delegates were staying at the sheraton or the four seasons or the hilton they were not within sight of any protesters this is actually fairly far away