supplementals already in particular discourse recent pronouncement and mccoy that you will conclude that this is a purely private conspiracy not affecting any activity economic activity anywhere it's a street crime th should have been prosecuted in state if it had been on the sidewalk perhaps the federal government could make an argument the census and pioneer park is that and that alone gives rise to the idea that pioneer park is a public accommodation of a statu wrestle with in mccoy is first they found the statute unconstitutional as applied to mccoy because there was no effect on commerce and because it was a non economic activity and they derive reasoning from morrison and lopez both decisions that the chief justice arthur and lopez the chief against by discussing the three areas of commerce that can be regulated by the congress logically concerns us here is the things people do the activities that somehow affect commerce now the government's argument has it's been in their brief well the park itself in this case it is admitted that what these defendants did and essentially getting drunk at a meal nazi party going to the park running through that with sticks and chains and whatnot and running three members of minority rights statutes are based on the effect on commerce and the section five of the fourteenth amendment says the government has to prove that without that there is no case this court in part of up cased and that's the case that involved the arson statute invalidated a conviction of burning a private home by a private person when the jurisdictional link to prove that element it was only  definition of public accommodation part we've raised first the factual issues of the strong will addressed concerning the fact that the park was closed and there wasn't any public accommodation at the time we've also raised the issue that in this case there is only non economic activity that's going on at the time and under the court's holding in lopez and morrison the regulation under strongest scrutiny over those acts when they regulate non economic history and the trend in this court in mccoy the supreme court in morrison and lopez and other express jurisdictional element finding that a certain type of activity i e racial discrimination affects commerce that those are the two least important elements of court should look at  circuit in discussing in the same discussion and mccoy specifically points out that of the four four test and morrison the elements that the court should address  effect that is well i'm not going to sell my wheat here but it has a ripple the ripple effect the inference upon inference and here if you look at the facts judge in this case and what morristown that the civil rights cases are still good law and therefore the only way in which a penal federal civil rights legislation can reach  private action has been the commerce clause and so i would ask the court to reject the thirteenth amendment analysis as inconsistent with the chief justice of opinion in more son and his ok the second circuit and the eighth circuit have indeed built section two forty five using thirteenth amendment analysis and my suggestion to th laws against from but of violent acts of the people against the people on the argument part being close my client was the one that got the ticket for being in the park after hours the crucial element here is that in every civil rights context and the court case is a good example that's the polish people on the mall case where the homeless people are on there the going to be a protest there and they said well we have first amendment right to protest in the park after hours and supreme court says no you don't because even the first amendment is a right on which the concours can't be placed as to time and placed upon first if they can be placed on the first amendment right certainly can be placed on a