Before my time begins, I would like to introduce myself.

My name is Reed McGraw, and I am

here with my co-council, Mr. Ian Smith, along with our witnesses Alex Chen, portrayed by Mr.
Adam Crawford, and Jesse Springfield, portrayed by Mr. Dominic Ritchey.

!
May it please the court
!

For more than seventy years, the stadium at Phillips High school has been known as Freedom
Field, in honor of the brave men and women who have served in the US military. However,
several months ago, following closed door meetings and without consultation with students,
teachers, or the entire community, Principal Gomez and the Phillips School district agreed to a
deal with the National Fructose Corporation (NFC), in which the district agreed to rebrand
Freedom Field as fructose field and grant NFC exclusive rights to snack and soft drink sales on
campus. In exchange, NFC agreed to install an artificial turf field, and contribute an
unexceptional 2% of its snack and soft drink revenues to the district.

After learning of this deal, students and teachers alike at Phillips quickly became concerned. In
particular, the defendants, Jesse Springfield, Storm Jackson, Alex Leslie, Terry Silva, and Trilby
Van Acker were very outraged with the corporate sponsorship of a school by a company whose
products are notoriously unhealthy, and are linked to increased rates of childhood obesity and
juvenile-onset diabetes.

In his US history class, taught by Alex Chen, Jesse Springfield has been learning about the civil
rights movement and the actions of leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. Described by Mr. Chen as
one of his best students, Jesse decided to apply the things he learned in class and create a group
called Occupy to peaceably protest the sponsorship deal. Similar to the Occupy wall street
group, no individual leader was appointed, as all decisions were reached by consensus. The
activities of occupy ranged from creating an online petitionwhich garnered over 1500
signatures, to posting flyers in school hallways, and holding a tent city similar to the
occupation of Wall Street, and the sit ins of the Civil rights movement. The purpose of the tent
city was to display the students opposition to the NFC deal.

The following day, Jesse Springfield, among others, entered school thinking it was just a normal
day. The bell rang, and he walked to his locker to gather his belongings for his next class. When
he arrived though, he found his personal lock cut of, and his belongings nowhere in sight. His
privacy had been violated, and his locker was ransacked. His backpack and even his smartphone
had been taken. Seized. Confiscated by Principal Gomez because he simply had a Hunch that
Springfields involvement in the Occupy group caused engagement in illegal activities, for which
he had no proof, or even a warrant to search Jesses locker. In addition, Jesse found that a
restraining order had been filed against him and Occupy and all of his flyers and posters that he
and Occupy had worked so hard on were being taken down and destroyed by none other than
Principal Gomez.

Jesse Springfield and the Defendants rights to free speech and protection from unreasonable
search under the first and fourth amendments to the US constitution were violated by Principal
Gomez and the District.

In court today, my co-council and I will show that the defendants motion for an order
temporarily restraining the district from conducting further searches of Defendants lockers and
backpacks and from confiscating leaflets, cell phones, and any other material related to Occupy
should be upheld. Through the testimony of Alex Chen and Jesse Springfield, we will show that
the districts action in prohibiting the posting of occupy materials is a content-based prior
restriction on expression and thus violated the first amendment of the constutition. Further, the
districts actions in searching defendants lockers and backpacks and in seizing cellular phones
violates the fourth amendment.

Today, opposing council will attempt to show that the defendants are not entitled to the use of
Freedom field because they are a non-curriculum related group and that the activities of the
defendants encouraged illegal and dangerous behavior, but the testimony of all witnesses will
show otherwise. Occupy is in fact a curriculum related student group, and the defendants
activities were not illegal, nor did they put anyone in immediate danger.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Defendants motion for temporary restraining
order and deny the districts motion for temporary restraining order.

Thank you.