on whether Amtrak was a “[gjovernment-created and controlled corporation].” Id. at 394, 395-400, 115 S.Ct. 961. In determining whether Amtrak was a government actor, the Supreme Court developed a three-pronged analytical test: where... [1] the Government creates a corporation by special law, [2] for the furtherance of government objectives, and [3] retains for itself permanent authority to appoint a majority of the directors of that corporation, the corporation is part of the Government for purposes of the First Amendment. Id. at 400, 115 S.Ct. 961. In order for an entity to be deemed a state actor each of the three prongs must be satisfied. See, e.g., Barrios-Velazquez v. Asociacion De Empleados Del Estado Libre Asociado De Puerto Rico (AEELA), 84 F.3d 487, 491-92 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); See also Hall v. American Nat’l Red Cross, 86
holding that where the government inter alia retains for itself permanent authority to appoint a majority of the directors of a corporation the corporation is part of the government for purposes of the first amendment holding that the federal home loan mortgage corp did not meet the government entity test because less than onethird of its directors were appointed by the government holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate government acquiescence in part because he never reported alleged gang incidents to the government and therefore could not prove that the government was even aware of a problem holding that because the president of the united states appointed only eight out of the fifty members who sat on the red cross board of governors the plaintiff failed to satisfy the third prong of the lebron test therefore the red cross was not a government actor holding that because the government of puerto rico did not appoint any directors to aeelas board the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the third prong of the lebron test therefore aeela was not a government actor