y the black and white paper isa paper but the fact the matter is that there was a long series of communications between the mirabelle's and the township that went on for months if not years resulting in a july twenty eighth twenty fourteen there the township is being threatened with a lawsuit by john muir bella who they know was in a charter they're basically saying to him if you're going to file suit against us we want you to deal with the township solicitor frank portal this email it doesn't well set forth in the complaint which is what we have before us if you look at the context there's been a whole lot of communication very concert a lot of consternation between the parties particularly in july and august and september  specific board which had a certain number of people what one individual cannot and mr walsh certainly could not keep mr mirabelle from contacting the government with regard to things outside of the me or anybody else which it's simply joe will say it it's not the board say it so my point is that one individual kid set policy for the board of supervisors  plaintiffs to communicate only with the tale of terry it was a day it was joe walsh in a peak of anger which was probably ruined from his perspective but it was not a violation of hours no it's not and specifically with regard to that particular point there's plenty of cases on the third circuit which says that when you get down to the issue of clearly established which is the second prong of the qualified immunity and else us you have to be able to point to similar cases not factually dentical but similarly factual so that the individual in question who's being accused tail ships in terms of directing citizens not to contact somebody some of the other officials on intelligence that is not the case number two there is no actually similar case out there in the third circuit or at the supreme court level by which mr walsh would have known or could have known that his particular conduct in this regard was violence or above the first amendment rights of the hereabout so what if you friend in terms of petitioning the government so your attorney right will e mail saying don't petition the government don't call me  it shouldn't do that identity and again i hate to keep going back to this but you have to be you have to put this in the proper context and when you read the complaint which is very very detail as i said you can see the context you can see the growing consternation between the parties and so when he gets an e mail the last e mail chain of five months of temperature twenty twenty fourteen that is mr walsh lashing out in anger at this gentleman mr authority and the rule supposedly right now there's no question he's speaking in his capacity as a supervisor but as i said before he can control what the mirabelle is true with regard to the township as a matter of fact continued to cut taxes the individuals about this particular issue after having threatened them a lawsuit he is now going beyond simply being a citizen he's now in a charity obviously closely at his particular case who is trying to develop facts to establish his claim against the township and i think it's perfectly legitimate for mr walsh to say to them i don't think you should contact my people anymore the complaint it's perfectly understandable that what he was telling him was with me who are to this particular matter don't bother to contact tail should people anymore if we can talk about the  exactly as i understand it the law is that we have to look at whether a person of ordinary firmness would be chilled in their expression for their petitioning activity as a result of the action of the government officials and here we have a circumstance where constitutional rights in this particular case all that they did was to instruct the solicitor and let mr mirabel know upfront if you're going to sue us we're going to have we were counselors appointed this particular case but we have to you for sanctions for what we consider to be a frivolous case and even goes on to cite rule ten twenty three point one which is the pennsylvania state law equivalent of ruhle in federal court basically saying if you file frivolous action you're going to put yourself at risk so all they were doing was putting mr mirabelle on notice of the township's reservation of its own legal right to seek sanctions if fact in they brought the action which they believe was going to be frivolous so advising somebody that you're going to exercise a legal right to see sanctions on  mirabelle as an attorney would process this and say ok that's something i'll consider whether jeff mcdonald do you simply said i disagree and let's put them on notice there's a specific section in ten twenty three point one i believe it's actually ten twenty three point two which says you have to give the other side twenty eight days notice of your intent to file a motion for sanctions on electric rule that's all he was referring to so it's your view that at it cannot be a not still is the object to laws and if the law says that you're going to be subject to sanctions if you fall for it as most are read this is the war we're going to come after us doesn't take a genius to figure out you go talk to your own attorney that particular point  in response to a threat of sanctions after twenty nine years of civil practice it's very rarely raised and i do not practice municipal law i am not omniscient i could have overlooked a statute case law or misinterpret something we had sent an eight page brief outlining our position in our reasoning which included so for the basis of our standing when i was sent e mails threatening with sanctions if we were really gratian which we had a real authority to do or so i thought set forth in that brief which i'd already provided the township i rode in back and i articulated as best i could my thought process was the time of the email was inappropriate the fact too if you're right and i don't have standing please provide me the legal basis for your position because maybe i'm just wasting everyone's time and response to that he now i receive me not from the chairman of the board supervisors that said basically never speak to us again he through the chain of our e mails and our communications i went to great lengths to be respect for people's time and whether they want to be yelled at work or not at work or how communications would be sent but if i have a continuing problem behind my property and people keep going  very seriously first the standard is an objective one not how i excepted it i read that e mail very clearly was intended to say shut up that's what the email was intended to say now i did although frankly the only other activity we gauge then was  and i know what the answer is going to be i've been told don't bother calling us don't bother call the police next time if people go out and start cutting things down we're done with you you don't like our there is a requirement to give notice before seeking sanction so his position is that because that was a legal right on their part and in fact an obligation if they wanted this extension that that a reasonable person would not understand district court moved contrary on because of the nature of an appeal of seeking profit immunity i can't appeal this decision at this time but i believe that our rights were first amendment rights more broadly violated but if i could just