speaking attend public meetings was an issue primary issue in that proceeding was whether or not the scope of the restrictions placed on mr pease to prevent alleged harassment were consistent with the first amendment obviously it was our position that those restrictions were grossly excessive this case to became the proverbial federal case when it ceased to be about the first amendment and became about intentional misuse of power by the highest ranking law enforcement officials of the city of seattle this case is brought under section one hundred eighty three to vindicate federal constitutional rights and the right we're talking about this procedural due process the first amendment might be the source of all of our political the the anger and freedom f seattle city attorney's office represents the state in this case but they are not defending did you ever get to judge our cross question the other important part of the state action here or is not only that the people of souter state actors but what they got was well maybe but but if he's fought for five hundred five hundred feet within five hundred feet of the chief of police based on just that he could have a complete hearing on in fourteen days or perhaps less if you go in and ask for an order for a new time which i'm sure is available well your honor at the couple of points raised in year one or two questions to get to one her a letter ruling to tell and to tell the court what the role of carol in the first amendment was now bear in mind at the time the state court is still been still playing with my client's first amendment  that's why i did not allege a violation of the first amendment but what is important in the judge finally after three ruling just figured out what we were talking about is the last ruling says yes there was a deprivation i'm slow to see those go without signs there we finally understand we're talking about the liberty interest that is at stake which is in dispute of the taking away from my client is political liberty for younger and a bunch of other reasons i didn't know what i actually did you know the way i phrased my question i thought city council meetings that was sufficiently important to the commissioner that he stated it in writing in his order and that is in the record now when mr porter went back down to the district court he did not provide a copy of that work to the court first somebodies personal safety and privacy reasons so if you balance in our opinions then question time place manner fourteen days maybe in order shortening time why it isn't exactly a deprivation of procedural due carefully and i'm sure that what they meant was a statute that comports with due process and that means that you're not going to get an x party domestic violence order unless there's some reason it has to be ex parte that is stated in the ethical rules relationship between chief political skin on or piece he's a political activist and accepting as true everything the accused him of the worst thing he's ever done as he filled up his voicemail with rambling about articles in the was thought to be restrained was not constitutionally protected the statute issue r c w ten fourteen specifically expressed as the constitutionally protected activity i e free speech not within the scope of conduct that can be restrained by the statute there's been a judicial determination that the conduct that was restrained was not constitutionally protected we are court was aware of that when he went in this second time i the district court having chosen to convert this into a renewal rather than a petition for a new order as leo or i had requested basically converted the proceedings into being covered under the renewal provisions of r c w ten what's going on with the criminal matter any first amendment interest here and that is something more than a question of where he's going to speak because this is a form that's only one place and one time it's not somewhere else and it's not and the audience is no where else of the question actually accomplish the seizure is that what you're saying i believe that's that an office or a state officer is enlisted by the private party to enforce and arguably invalid order in this case does there's no such it's not the case that any order issued pursuant to ten fourteen is unconstitutional or that any i just i just don't see the comparison well it's an interesting it's an interesting question and that might my answer to that is i don't i can't articulate why a precisely it's different if set to client out the difference and tense and the  i do not i cannot articulate an argument why enlisting the aid of a sheriff's deputy or a place officer just served an order and somebody is is there is there for the department on compartment time being paid by the department he must have been destroyed after otherwise he was acting illegally anyway i can't speak to you from practice that it's always the case that you go into the clerk of the king county district court you state you would request a renewal of the order and the the clerk sets the hearing order had expired he went and specifically requesting and new order and it was the court's determination that that would be converted into a modification of the existing order and  was constitutional that's not a correct understanding of what the state court did the restraining order to keep my client five hundred feet away from city hall as a remedy for specific acts of harassment there is no determination by the trial court th it constitutes unprotected conduct to be at city hall the prohibition on being at city hall is the remedy based on the assumption that he might do something not protected by the first amendment if he's there when the distinction between the deprivation of the first amendment right which is the subject matter of the due process claim and the underlying question which is not presented to this court of whether the trial court in the state correctly applied the first amendment standards to the remedy because it does not constitute harassment to go to the city council and speak that's just a remedy for something else so now we know for sure that there was something he was that was protected by the first amendment that was taken away from  because he had a hearing with regard to the first round or could have your honor he did not as a practical matter actually have a hearing very mind the state court proceedings were dismissed as moved so we don't actually have the final judgment card or collateral estoppel purposes that anything the trial courts in the state did was actually correct there's a presumption that until overturned that these things are correct but the reason we are having this discussion this morning is because of this time told by the city of seattle in pulling the plug became your problem when it became a due process case and what we're talking about here is he is an ex party deprivation of free speech and let me correct another point the city is still wrong about what the order does the city attorney and this may be or she honestly believes based on her recollection of the record says that it only applies when the chief is at city hall that's not true the order doesn't say anything about that it says five hundred feet away from his place of employment period he's subject to arrest the moment he tries to walk into the city council building and again when mr port was on the record for the commissioner trying to prevent review from being granted by making it seem like the whole problem is going to go away in a month he said no no you can go to city hall and then when he goes into court stating on the record i'm the legal advisor to the city police department i would like an order he walks out of there with an order which allows my client