The federal free-speech lawsuit a Bothell man filed against the city of Bothell has gained some regional media attention.

But because the issues are in litigation, city officials are unable to comment.

However, recent court documents shed light on the city’s side of the matter. The city of Bothell recently filed a response in United States District Court describing their opposition to the lawsuit and an injunction request.

Bothell resident James Barnhart filed the lawsuit against the city in April after city officials passed an ordinance barring signs from council meetings larger than 11 by 17 inches. Barnhart has brought many different signs, larger than 11 by 17 inches, to council meetings to make his “voice” heard.

But the city argues in court documents that the new ordinance does not curtail Bothell residents’ ability to speak their mind during council meetings.

“The city’s sign policy does not prohibit any channel of communication: signs are allowed … Council visitors can verbally comment on agenda items or non-agenda items during the visitor meeting segment. They can submit written materials into the record. And, they can communicate with larger signs outside, as Mr. Barnhart does regularly,” the documents state.

The city also denies other allegations from Barnhart, such as that the city attempted to intimidate him or bar him from the city council meeting.

“I told Mr. Barnhart first and foremost that we would not arrest him or forcibly remove him for entering council chambers with an oversized sign,” said city attorney Joe Beck in court documents. “… I told him the most that would happen would be that the police would make an incident report and forward it to the prosecutor for evaluation regarding whether any criminal violation warranting prosecution had occurred.”

Beck said that his intention was to reassure Barnhart that he would not be physically ejected or arrested and that city staff was “encouraging him to attend and participate.” Beck also stated that Barnhart took many of the things that were told to him and mischaracterized them.

The issues with Barnhart’s signs have been long running.

“I have been called out of council meetings to try to deal with him, particularly after officers have tried to reason with him with no success,” said Beck.

Both sides see Barnhart’s current and past issues with the city as part of the litigation. Barnhart believes that the city is singling him out in many instances.

But Beck pointed out the long-running code violation issues that Barnhart has with the city. He said that Barnhart’s issues with the city during the past decade have taken a lot of time and resources away from the staff.

“Mr. Barnhart’s dealings with the city over the past decade or so also place his accusation of retaliation in a different light,” said Beck in the court filing. “They suggest that, if anything, Mr. Barnhart’s actions in now suing the city are in retaliation for the city’s refusal to bend to his will.”

Beck said that Barnhart has threatened to sue the city in many instances.

“… the court should be aware that Mr. Barnhart, when displeased with the city, has made explicit threats to retaliate by suing Bothell and that he has a history of litigation with the city that long pre-dates the council’s adoption of revisions to its council meeting decorum rules,” said Beck.

Bothell Mayor Mark Lamb also defends the city in court documents, stating that the city does not prohibit signage outside of the council chambers.

“The city has not interfered with such expression by Mr. Barnhart in terms of viewpoint and content,” said Lamb. “It has asked for compliance in terms of size and material of signs …”

Lamb states that the large, rigid signs can be a hazard and infringe on other citizens’ free-speech rights. The city submitted in exhibits pictures of Barnhart sitting behind citizens at the podium for the public comment portion of the meeting. The city argues that his presence and the size of his signs are “shouting its message out of turn.”

“Larger signs can block citizens’ views and ability to follow council proceedings,” said Lamb. “They can create physical crowding and discomfort for the public. Depending on their composition they can create a risk of injury.”

The city has asked that if the injunction is granted that a bond should be required to cover potential consequences or damages, including personal injury. The city is asking for the bond to be set at $100,000.

A hearing on the injunction has not been scheduled.