search order to all men to williams mr williams i understand that this law that was passed and very behavior injured you and that that might be terrible but we can only act if there is evidence that we did that for racial grounds so what i'd like to hear is what evidence that is you and get it as a federal court we may be stuck all right well all i can say is  numbers and names and said if i want to be a police officer i should want to school be police officers in my report too that he had racial stuff to say to me because i was on probert property and i was night this one they said this is the new rule angelo they want to use this law here but the word in the same is notified immediately but they're going to use this new law test that actually under the colorable law because a local law falling they did not they failed to do that so everything that they have been forcing me making me have a license making me have to have to be nose insurance giving me this hardship made there was nothing in the record about differential treatment between white neighborhoods are going to minority neighborhoods in your show there's nothing in the record about him receiving one hundreds or hundreds of citations  these cases about four specific incidents and of those four he received a citation on one of them there's nothing in the record that the new rochelle police stop what about the deposition plaintiffs testified  used so that the district court examined that incident against the three different claims that mr williams pled and pursued at the district court level in your honor so he was represented by counsel below those three claims were selective enforcement under the equal protection clause a class of one claim under the equal protection clause and the section one thousand nine hundred and one claim so with regard to the selective enforcement claim there was no evidence that racially discriminatory manner the court did address the question is here you have a law that is clearly favoring and it's unfortunate but the law itself is clearly favoring a particular company which is a white company and you have one african american company is it enough that some police make racial claims racial statements to that company to allow an inference that vis law was very or in in force new way because in new rochelle there is racial discrimination that's what question no you're right we have no it's a law that favors one company that happens all the time and it may be would the answer is no this is the single isolated remark that mr williams claims to have been made is not a simple is not sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination the court to consider that in that incident there was clear evidence that the booting law had been violated was evidence of wrong doing of that part but that doesn't justify erases statement and the question is does that statement there was clear evidence that mr williams his company had violated the law so this alleged single utterance is not connected to the enforcement of the law he violated the law in that  in that specific incident and he was clearly i mean it was undisputed in the court below that there was a violation so williams claims that sergeant in zero uttered that remark i mr denies it of course for these purposes we assume that he said it absolutely true but that's a single isolated incident the district judge properly held that that was not sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination  want the court to understand the contract with safeway that mr williams referenced is a contract for safeway to vehicles that are on public roads and public property the looting business that mr about for example he mentioned the rates that safeway earns that that's a different scenario because that's a that's for towing a building on public highways the law in question regulates towing imputing on privately the the latter your honor there there are some cases that were cited in the briefs that talk about repeatedly using racial comments and in this case questions about before when you have a situation where there is a clear violation of the statute i think that the alleged use of a is isolated racial incident and has less of an impact then if there was a question as to whether right it's true but raised the question is they still make me pay the same fee to operate a business two million dollars fee put the dickless from you boot a car but you want but you do so i went to the city right and that's what happened now my lawyers who are fine he did something he wanted to do some electronic things as of today would never have been done and i criticize him and i fired him and also went to the local court and told them think i had about thirty seven trials in one day from a span of three years and i was like i'm going to trial they wouldn't go to trial so when my wife was sick in maryland when wife was sick