there to preserve the name of the confederate soldier it actually began in new orleans in eight hundred and ninety six when around the time general steven dillies was our product i'm arguing here today now what we're here today overall the sons of confederate veterans the national organization is one of the biggest what you meant by that is oh i'm sorry your honor the division is divided by per state so there's fifty divisions believe it or not thank lot of previous bridges and saying do you want to plan again or your honor the way my client describes it is the way people are are allowed to they're invited to actually participate in the parade was that were you saying got canceled or did you actually get some sort of agreement that you would be dismayed then was withdrawing your honor what what i'm trying to say is they did get an application which they filled out and in order for them to march they had to agree to not carry the confederate battle flag so according my client they believe that was that they were allowed to march and then it was withdrawn because email that stated yes your per dummy get back to that later but to answer your other question they did get some documents which is a standard of excellence which states you have to sign or agree to standard excellence in order participate and in its standard of excellence it's reviewed by the it was turned out to be reviewed by the city attorney however he says he can describe his participation at that i'm not going to speak perhaps now what happened was after that your honor there was a letter sent by someone known as the voters league i'm just going to call the voters only that requested to the mayor's office that they be deleted from participating in the parade so that's when the mayor sent a letter to the organization h d p a requesting that they not be allowed to carry the confederate battle flag and then there were some meeting organized the mayor had organized some meetings at that d on it she's one of the defendants but when they refused to not march in a parade with the confederate battle flag and at that moment after that that's when that e mail was sent had participated in this parade for approximately twenty five years previously they carried all the historical flags it's not that they that they believe that these are symbols of hate or anything like that your honor what it what it has to do is it historical accuracy most these men are civil war reenact or so they carry like replicas of the weapons and marching formation they have a little trailer in the back that where some of the older members ride on and sometimes they'll have a cannon with them so and i also believe the judge all rob is going to ask about the prescription period ok your honor that's what happened was when i had initially filed the the initial lawsuit when i filed an august th and we did include john doe defendants later when we had a scheduling conference there was a deadline to add all the defendants which i believe the deadline and i could be net she she started talking about her participation in the meetings that's when we became aware that the h d b a was more than just a private entity that it we believe we saw evidence it was a quasi public entity whereupon five days after that deposition i mended the complaint ice i submitted a memorandum in support and knowledge and that we had missed  judge then when the after the defense filed a motion for summary judgment what happened was at that moment the district judge sided prescription even though there was a previous ruling in favor with the rule fifteen relating back i hope that answers your question are so if your position is that because you were specifically given permission to add  this relates back to the time of the filing of the suit and therefore it's not prescribed yes your honor and also we had john doe defendants previously that there was a placeholder defendant in for that and then once the dignity became known at  oh yes your honor they were but we knew about their existence we did not know what their role their correct  that's why refer to it that john doe's were the placeholders at that moment i understand it there's not really cases that show that happened so this would be a st impression argument that i'm making where part whether or not they're going to contend whether or not the h t v a was actually a public entity a public entity or not we are doing it as we stated the reasons why the other is that whether or not that when they sent that e mail to tell my client you can go ahead and apply whether or not there was an acceptance whether the mare's participation cause a rejection of the participation of my client but ultimately your honor my client not just for the nominal damages they want to be able to participate in a parade that's there and carry their historical battle flags and they only want to participate if they can carry their historical  do you believe that there is in fact issue himself we consider them the final policy makers because they were all participants either and meetings or in meetings with my client or meetings with the h d b a the reason why as far as each d b a being held liable in a forty two  dollars is because it is an organization receives public monies and we're arguing that the parade in this instance although many parades are private private parades in this instance because there is a evidence of a cooperative endeavor agreement which according to louisiana constitution article seven section fourteen c i'm sorry article seven section fourteen see states that governments government agencies can contract with private parties for public purposes and that's why we're holding them and that's why specifically we're stating that they're liable but mainly i think your honor that where it's going to turn is not only just the actual character of the h whether or not they're my client or they accepted this parade and then they were denied rejected because the influence of the mayor or do they just send the applications out the other thing and i didn't have very much time to talk about was that the standard of excellence itself your honor we're also alleging is against public policy because based on the deposition testimony of the defendants the mayor the police chief has been in it and there are there are actually bar other groups such as gay lesbian groups there's also banning quantities by tom's ups and i don't have very much else ok your honor but we believe that that standard of excellence is also that's the complaint of policy that it violates policy for that reason thank you thank you thank you have thank you that afternoon waters may please court my name is jack true and i represent the historic business district association want to start with a statement opposing counsel just made which i think is really interesting he said that he considered the mayor the police chief to be the ultimate policy makers live my client the historic business district association is not a governmental entity they receive no funding from the city there was no financial oversight from the city they're operating pursu  to kentucky operative endeavor agreement there are five hundred and one c six nonprofit there's no appointment of members by the city so this is a historical business district in natchitoches louisiana that has members from this is to work district right on the river and the city does not participate in any way shape or form in what the historic business district does well so what would you say your best case is in support of what you just out to us in particular that we should rely on auto workers case i think is very instructive because the facts were very now i guess in that case in that case you had the united auto workers who wanted to see in the th circuit case i guess on a th circuit case that you would by labeling historic business to circus associations like this or fair sponsors as governmental entities i think that we're going to open pandora's box and we're going to have into t's being deemed to be governmental entities and where would the line stop i mean it would it would be very problematic for us to go in that direction in this particular case there was no requisite nexus between the city and his school of business district the conduct there is not fairly attributable to the city while the city may from time to time put on their own events on in this case the historic business district association put on its own event separate in part and while it's true that the city provided for example police protection or may have paid for maintenance workers after the parade i don't know that that necessarily equates to what the historic business district association was doing in this case was  government governmental act ory deems them to be a state actor have to pay for that privilege of the maintenance people to help pick up the stuff city picks up that tab so they're cooperating with you well you said it would be a terrible thing if we were to hold that they were city beach that you were government actors last minute would be terrible thing but would it also be a terrible thing if the government wanted to discriminate against particular groups and so we would work through a rd party they would be that they would express their viewpoints too but then the rd thing they could say well the rd party is responsible and the rd party has now doesn't have to follow the st amendment so every so they're accomplishing their goal through the use of a vehicle of a rd party would not be just as concerning right so you're saying in other words that it would be like a route is that we're going to discriminate true a private entity and while that may be problematic and that could potentially be an issue in a case those are not the facts in this case and we have to determine this case based upon the record that was a deuced in this case and what the trial judge had before and in deciding summary judgment and the mayor pacifically told her into t that would be a bad idea to let him participate in this he did he did say that and in context of the south carolina church shooting i submit that it would have been a bad idea but heckler's veto that because they said that they were concerned the black panthers were coming or something on the record here and so it allows because other people may come to disagree with the speaker and they may cause a problem in about saying they would cause a problem i please i' just saying i'm looking at the record and what was alleged by the plaintiff and what was said by the mayor what why isn't that so heckler's veto on the that no one saying that these this group here is causing problems or causing a riot or anything it's that other people's reaction to them would cause a problem right and i'm going to drag that one thing i do want to jump back to though and it doesn't address your question your honor but judge southwick you asked a question about this in the and whether or not it was wrong that is just completely inaccurate what happened in the case was there was an there was disagreement sent and they never signed it returned or was it soon because they had more rated before because they  paraded before and it was just sent out as a matter of you sent out maybe we call it the list somewhat basically those who disobey god for get these sorts of dark very very perfunctory yes sir but but to get back to your question general but if you're saying there's something wrong about you but your friend no side was saying what what was really wrong about that i really did say we got these documents we fill them out we send it back in there no that's not what happened it's not correct that they were never signed and dated and sent back to number one and number two he did say that i thought he did you know there was this discussion about well maybe you could parade if you don't pray with the confederate battle flag which was the source of controversy and they chose they elected not so that was their own choice not to participate in the right way government reacts government it was doing this it wouldn't matter whether they chose not to go without their flag or not because it would still be it would still be a st amendment i have anything to say about the heckler's veto that your organization decided on here's what i think's important your honor is even if we assume that somehow we are a state actor  we're making a decision that violate someone's st amendment rights then i think what you have to go to is the strict scrutiny of whether or not there's a legitimate purpose expressed for not allowing them to participate purpose because you're not paying for the the security or the cleanup there are already spot you that so what's the legitimate purpose that you would have a concern that the parade was going to be disrupted because of security issues ever a legitimate reason to shut down something that heckler's veto is it i think i disagree i think that even a governmental entity has a right to determine whether or not some as something if it's going to be disruptive i think that would be appropriate in this case our people based upon their race from participating in your parade know we we had we had a security expert that we introduced as an expert in this case and that was not  not refuted on the summary judgment he testified under oath that there were going to be safety issues involved if the if the sons of the confederacy veterans were allowed to participate and wave their confederate flag was justification have not been accepted in those this is a very frequently litigated issue in colleges for example you don't get to shut down the college speaker in a public institution because other people might come and disrupt that college speaker barring some you know that's you know that's that's the way the law works right and that would be what you're speaking of judge all right would be the college or the universe is a state entity is that correct right and that's why you you said if you were a governmental entity you said you still could bar people based upon the security impact and i'm testing that premise that's correct we are but i would submit to the court that we do have a right to regulate the participation of people if we're deemed to be a state actor but case based upon safety concerns like cases that i don't i don't have that case your honor ok so maybe your best bet is that you're not a state actor and he's going to have this argument  it under the law of prescription and the other issue is under the law prescription it's what information does the app does the plaintiff have that with suffice to that would incite sufficient inquiry to determine whether or not in this case  if it was a city's parade i think it would depend on the circumstances there would have to be legitimate and it would have to be a certain restriction if it is  ever bar people based upon their race from for no not based on their rights not because the other people are going to come after them and they don't can't afford not based upon their rice they cannot trying i didn't put it all together so why has the hat not acceptable i'm glad we agree that that's not acceptable but why is that not acceptable but it's ok to borrow other marchers based upon the heckler's veto that other people that a different group is going to come in and disrupt why is it wired why are you not treating them the same that's not what bar his clients from marching with their flags if this were then we get to the question i answered a while ago and and that would depend on the circumstances  earlier a plaintiff's counsel and there was background you asked about the letter of november two from the mayor that requested that they not allow the flag in the parade in the letter from to the sons of confederate veterans said your application to march in the parade is denied which you can't march in the right and i think you asked is there some background there there was a meeting in my office where that has been hijacked by so many hate groups and in heads every time you see something bad on t v it's some white supremacist group or skinhead group or what have you it might be wrong but they're white in that con flag is when hijacked and so how about leaving the flag out and mr grambling response was will never compromise the compromise is to surrender we will never surrender meeting happen between the mirror should know that meeting happened before and so when the mayor's letter requesting that they bar the flag from the parade it a meeting about whether the people would be able to participate in the parade with their flag and you said the mayor is trying to work it out figure out a solution it doesn't sound like the mayor it's not the mayor's parade or the city's parade city and sixty percent of our population is african american and i promise you fifty nine percent of that sixty percent on the confederate battle flag to be offensive city with with decision making regardless of the normal workers case dealing about whether there are separate from non state actor or not we need to look at what the city's control over this was and whether you might have some understand listen to the citizens and so then the mayor talked with the sides to see if there's some resolution and there is no resolution and so then he made a request to the permit holder of the it seems to me close to to maybe not requiring that we don't know when i may have happened behind the scenes but basically inform the historic district that you really should let these people march why sure i fully understand god said it poorly no doubt but why isn't the city decision as rep it why isn't the mayor's direction encouraging they may have been more than encouraging don't let these people march with the flying and we know they want more without the flag why isn't that a decision for which the city should be held responsible well as pointed out of the in the trial judge's ruling the mayor's not fall policy and he is not the final policy the city council is also yes but they didn't write a letter to the city council the city council didn't they didn't vote only this was the mayor's letter based on his contact with and once one time the question of whether or not h t is is in the public sector or private entity there's absolutely no evidence in the record none none that they are anything other than a private entity mr neighbored posed everybody he could think up and not one person look it would have been in the benefit to the benefit of the last combat throw city and of the bus for him to say when i got that letter from the mayor i knew or i had that is not what he said in fact what he said was this is our party we make the rules for this party and if you don't like the rules that we make under our standards of excellence etc then go to another party we are not we the age to be a refuse to only play a direct role speech speech help enforce the speech restrictions of the private entity that may not mean that they're liable from the mayor and said that unless there is substantial objection i'm going to i'm going to solve the mayor's request that st time she had ever seen the letter or heard about the letter and and the chief had nothing to do and no knowledge of the letter itself propagate or enforce the letter he didn't force the letter but there was nothing to enforce no ma'am but it might not have had us and i said so you shoot him because you might have done something that you didn't do and he might have done something that he didn't do and he says yeah ok and in the  any of the city employees play a role in drafting the standards of excellence or in reviewing the standards of excellence what does the record show on that no absolutely no you didn't in your capacity as the the letters clearly stated there were requests of my client marching in parades with the flag has nothing to do with allegedly not signing the application all your honor the thing with that was that was not the st time i was brought up in a home rule charter was brought up by the judge except i was never in or dusun evidence ok your honor the reason why we say it is is because he took the lead in organizing the meetings he wrote the letter on city letterhead there was no one from the city council said hey look mary you can't do it so not unheard of but the question of whether that binds the city is a legal question and watch your are i'm stating that it is same thing when they policeman violates  rights of the citizen his action is illegal unconstitutional actions binds the agency that hires well your honor we're stating that the letter that the mayor road where he made the request that ok yes you're on a better standard get back to the bears but no your honor the cooperative endeavor grima which was signed by the it it does not your honor it just basically states that what it does is differentiate the roles between what the city does and what each d b a does to the city council authorize the payment for all the security and all of that  cooperative endeavor agreement like i said it's for public policy we do not know that role they always kept saying they were private private private and my client when they throw up the prescription issues my client had no idea because they actively stated that they were private and then we are uncovered evidence otherwise now my clients be in pain wise for that and that's how we you know that's how we relate to that now also your honor although the cooperative endeavor agreement does not state anything about this mayor is authorized to write a letter stating who can and cannot participate the mayor the city itself through the mayor is the one that his he is the one that select the employee that sat on the h d be a parade committee that was miss benette he's also the one the police chief himself in an e mail stated to somebody it was that when it was an expert on security another thing i was a minute by the h g v a was the fact that there were many that day of the praise self many people did carry the confederate flags there was no any evidence of any disruption or anything caused by this and it was flags that were passed out to people that were parade viewers that's always there always never address that if there was security concern why was this done there was no disruption that days security expert there legit security expert we're posing that doesn't nation doesn't address that now getting back to the cooperative endeavor agreement because it's allowed by the constitution of louisiana it's it in their cooperative endeavor agreement it states like what role the mayor and the city itself has and i'm alleging that that one of the implied tasks is that the mayor carry out this cooperate endeavor argue that in this case because that's a very good question that judge james brought up the last thing i'm going to state is in the end of my client really would like to be allowed to participate to be invited to be allowed to participate in at nine am thank you