That's fine. And I note that, and that's why I wanted to do this on the record. And I understand that you object to that, and I understand the defendants have interposed not only this objection but they have also argued against that. And to the extent that this really clarifies and reasserts what I have in my prior orders, I think you've preserved your position as it relates to that, and I understand that position.
The plaintiff objects to the judge's comments being on record.  
There is no reference in the paragraph to the judge speaking to the plaintiffs, but it is clear from the context that the judge is speaking to them and that they dispute the judge's position regarding comments on the record.  The system is perhaps confused by the use of the word plaintiff, since the paragraph only references the defendants and the existence of the plaintiffs' position is merely implied.  
( z1 object :ARG0 ( z2 plaintiff ) :ARG1 ( z3 record :ARG1 ( z4 thing :ARG1-of ( z5 comment :ARG0 ( z6 person :ARG0-of ( z7 judge ) ) ) ) ) )