boils down to this there is no economic next us president to justify federal jurisdiction over the actions of these defendants this placed at this time i believe when you read the cases cited supplemental authority and particularly this court's 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 that should have been prosecuted in state court it's your honor it's a crime that had it been committed on the street by pair pioneer park and there would have been absolutely no issue whether federal jurisdiction whatsoever if they've been on the on the road that have been on the sidewalk perhaps the federal government could make an argument that since it's in pioneer part that and that alone gives rise to the idea that pioneer park is a public accommodation of a statu by an employee at the base photo shop at this navy base with a few early interest states activity that had no effect on interstate commerce whatsoever and mccoy because there was no effect on commerce and because it was a non economic activity and they derived that reasoning from morrison and lopez both decisions that the chief justice arthur and is the channels of commerce the howies and violations of commerce and the third which is the only thing that we can log that logically concerns us here is the things people do the activities recent cases focused on this is a crucial issue in this case judge what the defendants did and in the record in this case it is admitted that what these defendants did and essentially getting conviction and burning a private home by a private person when the jurisdictional link to prove that element was only the nearest they transport natural gas to heat the house the teaching point from papadopoulos though is whether it's in validating a statute or upholding a statute or looking at a jurisdictional element of a crime the courts use the same analysis and same analysis we've raised that first the factual issue in 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 that third prong that the for the prong of the commerce clause when the congress of the rest of what people move to other people it has the strong it the congress has the weakest power and the courts maintain the 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 courts throughout the nation has then when regulating test and morse and he says that's one of the things the court should in fact consider their legislative history and or is there an expressed of yours diction or element finding that a certain type of activity specifically points out that of the four test and morrison the two elements that the court should address first are the regulation of commerce or economic activity and the att mentioned specifically in morrison and 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 is through the commerce clause and so i would ask the court to reject the thirteenth amendment than alice's as inconsistent with the chief justice of opinion  so that his argument it relates to not only the rule twenty nine it's fairly clearly theoretically need the standard view of the law he wouldn't like most favorable to the government they failed in terms of their proof on that issue and we believe and regarding the thirteenth amendment issue as it was it's questions that in the civil rights case is concerned whether a private action in closing and in a public conveyance or pay place of public and use meant by an individual person constituted a facet slavery and the court held that it did not and that it would be in fact running the slavery argument into the ground to make it apply to every act of discrimination in other words be reached under the commerce clause their own they are subject to the state rather than federal jurisdiction and here there is no indication at all that the state of montana with either unwilling or unable to address the issues raised by this case comprehensive by the federal federal civil rights legislation enacted in response to the national civil rights movement with the intent to eradicate racial discrimination throughout the country and the words of his i don't like cases challenging park merely because of the color of their skin the before congress and  hundred two a civil case against defendants who would sell mr jones a house an activity clearly not only related to commerce but also civil action a different topic is before the court today laws against from but of violent acts of will people against other people on the argument part being closed 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 clark case is a good example that's the homeless people on the mall case where the homeless people are on there is a 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 has no you don't because even the first amendment is a right on which concords can't be placed as to time and place contours if they can be placed on the first amendment right certainly can be placed on a