this plot to generally harassing him and at one point even saying that he intended to get rid of mr prout ultimately there was a physical altercation between mr crowder and this first number of serious charges and subject to court martial against mr crow so first class crown after he was charged in june of one thousand nine hundred seventy after approximately a twenty four hour investigation with these four charges and the wash alleging that conspiracy involved just this first lieutenant as well a subordinate officers and enlisted personnel who were beneath him who were fabricating evidence putting in false information in an effort to infuse him and maligned him and destroy his the court my name is major susan sutherland specialist assistant u s attorney for the eastern district of washington representing the department of defense and the national guard bureau with the court's permission i'd like to reserve the second half of my allocated time for my colle the point in time where he knew how far the discrimination went and who was involved that's the starting point on the statute of limitations he fails to file suit against the state of washington until march fifth two thousand and two and that's the earliest today that he could have filed suit according to the record when we look at the docket sheet from the district court that first and a second complaint were actually rejected by giving him the benefit of the doubt used in march two thousand and two as a date he still will be on the three year statute of limitations now in this regard mr prout really is makes only one argument and he says that equitable stoppel should be applied as against the state to prevent us from asserting the statute of limitations  claiming that he was told all these matters would be resolved before he was discharged but equitable stoppel requires that you don't have actual knowledge or knowledge of the true facts and in this case his pleadings belie his claim that he didn't two ways that you can get around the eleventh amendments to the state and federal court congress abrogates eleventh amendment or the state waves it's a lot of them and then immunity having said that let me turn real quickly there were individuals who  named in the caption of this lawsuit but never served so the question of whether or not it's properly served or named individuals isn't an issue before the court so turning back to the other two points nobody's argued abrogation except with regard the title seven we already know that doesn't apply based on three decisions from this court so the next question is did the state in one way and the state didn't wave there's two requirements to show a waiver on the part of the state the state has to participate voluntarily participate in a program and congress in that program house do name that a group of defendants which would include the state could be sued based on that participation here the u s c off on the first point i have discovered a cure culture restaurant on versus san francisco community college is just twenty six third nine sixty eight which indicates that the eleventh and unity has in fact been how the board of correction military records would somehow provide a relief for mr graham i think on a high if he was purely correcting an error in his records that might be the case however he does have a title seven claim and there's no jurisdiction of the special limitations the statute of limitations is an issue that was not decided below i think there are issues in this case as to claim a cruel as to when he in fact knew or should have known that he had the claims that he has i think there's also