corporation that in that waukesha county area has provided both low income and housing and housing specializing for people with a handicapped by mental disability it provide that did provide community base housing in the near west side of the walking but the cases about cases against driver bauman who moved into the neighborhood of one of permits to operate at the location it did obtain required permits from the city of milwaukee by obtaining a reasonable accommodation through bay hearings before the yes he did in two thousand and seven he directed the department uses power to direct the department of neighborhood services to issue an order to close down  without an investigation what power does an alderman have to do that he does not go in the chain of command all right you know what other words you're alleging he spoke he didn't have any legal authority there the i hope you see that there's going to be a big problem under the first amendment with reading a statute to condemn speech i hope you see that i understand that i do but the but there have question do you have any case holding that section thirty six seventeen prohibits speak anybody speak distinguishing commercial speech from noncommercial speech right the fair housing act has been applied to advertisement there is always a problem about what what happens in the world of commercial speech but we're not dealing here with commercial speech so far as i can figure you say you're not aware of any case saying that thirty six seventeen prohibits noncommercial speech i don't know where cases that read that that say that in fact or is that speech is used to harass to threaten to people interfere with people's rights to fair housing and as a as a vehicle and i  that it's rather threats are one thing right i think we can probably all agree that threats are not protected speech right but and we can imagine concerted efforts by neighbors let's say a weekly cross burning for example as expressive activity that might would probably not be protected as a means of driving unwelcome families out of a neighborhood but what you've alleged here looks pretty close to the core of political speech i yeah i guess i disagree with that because well let's look good sorry go ahead if you have the political speech would take place in an avenue where there's an open hearing which did happen where try corpus applying for a reason you're not think political speech takes place in the back corridors of government enclosed committee meetings in private letters private conversations well i think speech that she speaks takes place in every detail like that but you have if you if you sent if you said that no form on where where where lies basically are used to it and speech is used to convince malaki county to take that residence out of the out of the facility hope you're not suggesting that in the world of politics wives who are deceit is on protected you know that your pennington doctor and oh true which holds good lives and deceit are protected as part of normal politics suggest that if any part of the interference and all speech could be no interference nobody's taking that suggesting that extreme a position you know so but suppose a member of congress proposed some of the legislative amendment that because you're talking about legislative speech you're not talking about interference with a particular right protected under the under the fair housing act the fair housing act here  reasons for his catch his this is statements to milwaukee county maybe me that he jest suppose he genuinely believed that the building was unsafe for its residents that they had there was a body found in there that had been he genuinely believe the body had been ignored for four days that people were wandering on the streets and he felt these people were unsafe and made efforts on his own behalf to get the facility closed down is that is that improper i think that's a fact issue i think it's a fact issue in the case it's something we're going to assert that we can counter with the fact that it never was in the building of his life although invited to be in there was an offer to tour the facility was offered to do x y and z and never did i mean are so whether his speech is protected would depend on how much investigation he had done or whether it was truthful and in in it and it can and i see somebody i think you can go i think you can go beyond the limits  circumstantial evidence in the case because there's two facilities operated by trike where one was two blocks from a limb and bowman's house the other one was not operated the same way subject to the same mortgage  e could you answer the question what evidence is there of something more than speak there was perhaps temporarily successful speech but the fact that speech is persuasive doesn't make it something other than he had no legal authority over this issue whatsoever he had no legal authority to tell the counter there was nothing he could have done in an official capacity all he could do was speak well if the head of the f t c gets called before the house commerce committee and gets dingell ised that is browbeaten by the chairman of committee and then does what the committee chairman asks is the committee chairman liable interfered with by i can't i understand i understand the question of a think that almost every form of contact asked in oral speech in some fashion or another i don't think that we can be living human beings state law i think separately so i think look better under the fair housing act so actually thirty six thirteen if you could prove violation you would have access to compensatory damages pun what this is section one hundred eighty three claim and that is not already available under the fair housing act except that you have to prove a couple of extra additional elements and you have to cope with a potential qualified immunity i think this case is is unique in the sense that trike purdie hasn't established right i don't think it has to go back and prove that it has a right to a reasonable accommodation in order to show that  an maybe we're not connecting probably our nineteen eighty three you you agree with me you have to prove prove a violation of the fair housing act under the theory you're proposing correct i the stablish right to a reasonable accommodation that you can it force under under either the fair housing act following certain elements and under the  at least that have been presented to the court decided to the court putting blocking and helprin for example where there has been a discussion of by this by this court of a violation of thirty six seventeen involved beach plus there is some allegation of speech by neighbors or a condominium association in the sense that homeowners condominium owners were told something could or could not be done or they  harassed in some form of either written or oral speech but there was more than just speech there was just struck in a property for example there was removal of property for example and the while they are in the helping case certainly there was no authority granted to those neighbors by any articles of her condominium association for example to take that kind of action was completely illegal for example to destroy property there was something more than speech and getting to the back to this case there has been no showing of anything other than some form of speech by all the the citizen board of the city of moore in spite of the alderman's apparent objection to the property and contest to the property the next speech comes in after out there is a person i believe is mr draws he was found dead in the property and the alderman contacts someone from the department of neighborhood services it's without question the department of neighborhood services is under the direct supervision of the commissioner of the the of neighborhood services for the city of milwaukee that's a person or individual who is nominated by the mayor and appointed by the entire comic council not just one member of the  he is apparently or the department is persuaded to perhaps wellman bahman to issue an order because of what it appeared to be a violation of their  special use permit that they receive from the border zoning appeals and the order that they have but again that's just beach by i want all the men to an administrative agency at most and incidentally that is it as the record reflects the statement facts from the just report reflects that's appealed in a timely fashion and it's stayed so the order is not effected there is no removal of individuals from the property at that point it's not worth caused by the department of neighborhood services there is no direct ability either directly by something he signs or indirectly by someone he orders in either of those situations the last circumstance that we i believe the executive director of wisconsin housing we've got and i'm sorry i don't have all the media these was got the housing economic development authority that's a state agency that's a state  they organize it because there is a default in the mortgage by tricor and it's for the both properties and they want to decide with these various interested  parties what they're going to do or they want to inform them what they're going to do next and at that time i don't think there's any dispute about this we don't answer is they're going to foreclose on the properties at most at that point all the environment does one of two things he says what i don't think you offer is an opinion i don't think this is an appropriate place for a facility like this i think it has inherent problems no matter who runs this facility and secondly the apparent city of milwaukee much less an individual and that's milwaukee county he persuade someone it milwaukee county well let's move it you know they're going to move their their clients out of  this facility on richardson street many of whom were apparently moved to the other facility in west allis and so again these are in this instances of speech not speech plus not the kind of ability to order or direct a subordinate or on his or her own for example fire marshal or of fire chief or police chief or the commissioner of the party to be able to set of services who himself fashion according to plaintiff at least a function of balance activities i know i know that it's the allegation that milwaukee county began moving residents out that created a financial problem but there was something actually issues even before he and kraft it's my understanding that the financial issues beforehand from the from the record of the audits that were introduced it was an illicit one point bring your account current and then try courted but they were they had been and they had been delinquent at one point while they were delinquent i believe what happened is in the beginning of july two thousand and seven there was an automatic draw right you know the words there is a bank draw that we draw automatically tricor doesn't have to sign a check we don't attempt the automatic draw there was rejected by the staff or insufficient funds right we did tries it again later that month in later in july and his exit is successful after that there are no other payments and there is never another payment and the property is lost fact and by the by their own representation today apparently the financial issues if there were any connected to any kind of uncertainty while placing individuals in the property in two thousand six or two thousand and seven had been resolved and that tricor had recovered from any any issues about that and so in sum with respect to thirty six seventeen which there is a direct action here i i would submit it fails because it is not the kind of interference that the statute has and much chance if i could follow up on that pleading problem as i understand the law the plaintiff in his complaint doesn't even need to mention the statute under which he suing he doesn't need to specify whether it's ninety three or direct claim under thirty six thirteen of the housing for housing act so how could there be any prejudice about what's the value of layering in one nine hundred eighty three claim on top of the thirty six seventeen point don't have to prove a violation of thirty six seventeen on top of whatever you have to prove it for ninety three i would submit that that's discrimination whether it meets the four corners of a statutory right or not if it involves some kind of discrimination against any of the groups identified in the statute including those with disabilities that it's actionable under nine hundred eighty three i would submit there's no authority for that proposition there's none that's been cited and last but not least i don't want to miss the point i think it's important since tricor up to this day has not cited any case for the proposition that speech only can be a violation of thirty six seventeen that leads to the next problem under one hundred three which is the qualified immunity  and resolved by saying there's no case authority for the proposition that you violation now if you see somebody under an individual a private individual under the f h a there's no defense of qualified immunity is there a private individual that's correct you care and in this case alderman bellman it's not clear to me how he was acting under color of state law even or certainly not exercising direct legal powers as an older man  it's also not clear to me how qualified immunity would be available under section one hundred eighty three the supreme court has told us and i believe it was richardson against mcknight private prison guards for example who were test that there is any direct legal authority to order anything here for example to order a closure to order a withdrawal of clout of clients from the property and the like nonetheless the claim is that he in essence used his authority as and all of his position as an alderman to persuade people that he would be more persuasive than mr or ms jones who lives next door and who comes in and sa i don't want that property there because well there was a dead person that was found in the village and so i don't want to i don't want to could see the point the nine hundred eighty three is an appropriate vehicle here i don't think i recall correctly the district judge here remanded the tort claim to state court correct that that is correct has anything happened in state court since that order it has you know the state court action has remained in limbo pending the appeal here and is it correct that on the state tort claim when the wisconsin court of appeal sent that back it was without having considered any issue about whether brown's conduct was quote