sent simply because you order an item and then your name ends up on every other catalogs list it's because you are taking an example of news and i think you misunderstand in the order the court i'm just reading from the order of the court further  twenty five hundred additional pieces of mail to process so it's the time that it takes to process that additional now takes staff away from hurst class now which would probably be more likely to contain contraband or and i understand that that's a bird but that's you can that's how you handle that problem once you handle the problem by putting on more staff you no longer have the problems with me trying to go to the first class mail but i understand of course there's a burden on prison but it informative on this issue because the increased volume of them you know i would say that they're not informative but i would say this case is much different the court in those cases was careful to point out that subscription publication not know what they are doing with it it needs to screen for contraband that might be inserted in the mail itself and also for content and you know this must be provided to the sender and in the if it is rejected your legal papers for example they do your honor however that restriction and while it isn't force isn't not effective in isolation because that does nothing to reduce the burden on the mail room staff and it also discount which made it absolutely clear state may not use arbitrary classifications such as fact that mail is generated from the internet as a method of controlling the amount of mail that comes through we argue therefore that judge lastic carefully review the facts in this case had no alternative under this precedent but to enter the injunctions that he entered but we believe that he was too lenient with the department of corrections and given strain of clear precedent the department of corrections was not properly given qualified immunity in this case it was quite clear they adopted simply another forms of arbitrary classifications by adopting a decision not the fundamental or material or similar facts which make it clear to a reasonable officer i think cannot adopt the type of policies that just shift to a different context and constitutional behavior and that's what inspections at the mine roker optional facility which is the largest facility in the state and on average there were just thirty one pieces of bulk mail and catalogs combined given the fact that the department of corrections has not given notice when they censor materials and therefore do not return them either they throw them in the trash there is no reason to believe that any vendor is on we're at these policies and therefore there would be no change you can judge last week's position i don't believe so your honor and i think that what is absolutely clear from prison legal news persons crook and worse and worse haul is that no reasonable official may arbitrarily select a class of male don't like a grab that let's see what we could get rid of and that's what they've done here catalogs both male and say based on that rationale there's going to be less fires in a prison cell based on that arbitrary classification there's going to be more security in the prison less contraband as this court has recognized that's the opposite it's the first class mail where there's more likely to be contraband all of these arguments have been made before all of them rejected any differences this this is a one page catalog of prison legal news that offers books that educate prisoners about their rights we have to hear the subscription renewal notice nothing's going to be hidden in here in addition based on these unconstitutional provisions from the department of justice publications have been censored by the justice department scuse me by the department of corrections there are lots of very of inmate mail must be accompanied by the minimum procedural safeguards established in martina's over thirty years ago group involved the censorship of allegedly obscene materials which are obviously not protected by the first amendment final recognize me this court recognized that the only way to challenge that censorship decision was if miletus and an opportunity for hearing were given and if the department of corrections would be allowed to make the sole decision with no notice one could never challenge those decisions and crew certainly stands for the proposition that all the censorship of welcome mail in this case without notice is unconstitutional and has been self for over thirty years in fact in sorrels versus mickey this court recognized that the only reason why the censorship without notice in that case allowed qualified immunity is because it was considered a random qualified immunity which of sitting down and general sense damages but i was talking about real money are we talking about the nominal damages where your honor there was an expert report submitted in this case i think in round numbers the expert judgment we think as a procedural matter that should preclude them from asking the court to do something here in addition you could see from our grief that we identified you know our motion for summary judgment ten different dates on which substantial numbers of third party legal materials were rejected censored the department of corrections addressed only for dates and only certain portions of the documents that were censored certainly judge lassen it could not grant summary judgment to the government without being presented with all the evidence necessary to evaluate each of those documents as the court recognized in the decision below were well over one hundred documents requiring individual eyes determinations to see whether the justification for that particular document for censoring it was legitimate the only thing judge lastly could reasonably do in this case was order a trial we would hasten to state that there were certain documents we identified for which the department of corrections admittedly should not have been censored and in fact there were some documents to which there was no legitimate reason the government could come up with so we thought anything the court would have been justified in granting summary judgment to possible rationale for the first amendment right and the issue implies less broadly in the circumstances that he and i'm not wholly artificial dichotomy now in that case there were members of the hor who argued that they had been removed from the zoning board for their free speech and the court said there was no distinction there between that case which involved a pointed official and a prior case which involved elected officials that the same reasoning applies likewise in this court's ruling in advance versus barrett three forty five after ten eighty three on page two ninety four two thousand and four  the court said that there was no distinction that there was a distinction without a difference rather between which allegation by the department of corrections against prisoners  department of corrections officials should not be given a by simply because they can or fully come up with some way of mis characterizing we haven't seen in this case rather qualified immunity should protect those officials who are trying to comply with the law not those who are trying to evade the law i'd like to reserve whatever time i have and i go back to the qualifying having a third party legal material this year i'm reading from judge last mentioned order for fourteen he writes before the court and we asked the court to reverse his decision on that ground because prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity first because there is no constitutional violation in restricting material that honor there there must be a limit there have been a flood of cases coming before this court with arbitrary classifications one after another and the court we believe should make it that's clear as it has already made it right here with the extra measure of damages to say the apartment of corrections they must find another way to address any legitimate pain a logical justification is they have for administrative costs for reducing mail besides the grab bag approach i might add that opposing counsel has released other factors in the turner factor test which have not been addressed by the lower court and have not been  adequately briefed before this court including that prison legal news documents are available in libraries which the record below show is largely not true so we asked horton not to start looking at facts that are not accurate  prisoners of what their rights were not the injunction that is a third party legal material that was not addressed of course in judge last week's decision because it was not censored until after that but that is the type of evidence that needs to be addressed by the jury so you agree with the ruling then there are questions of fact that need to be resolved before the qualified immunity terminations can be made regarding third party legal materials ye now i also like to point out that some of the mail that would be at issue here could be very very important mail and it would be completely irrational for the department of corrections to censor for example if king county or some other county were to send up property versus lambert made it clear that as a person legal as versus crook it became clearly established that arbitrary classifications such as bulk mail  a comic book were clearly unconstitutional and if one takes any magazine one can see that they are in large part full of advertisements and in this case there is even evidence that some of the prisoners was simply a question of whether the censorship of the green lantern comic book took place before or after the law was clearly established and it's my understanding of that court's decisions when you talk about the bulk mail holding