with you is limited to three substantive areas this appeal involves only one and that being the question of probable cause given the district court's ruling and the arguments made by the government on appeal i think the best way to approach the probable cause question is in two parts and the first part is to ask whether this court can affirm the district court's ruling that there is probable cause extradite my client based on the conclusion that she committed she was part of a conspiracy to commit murder the second question is whether this court could have affirmed the district court petition based on the alternative grounds identified by the government on appeal the article twenty one grounds and the answer to both those questions i think is no the first question  is a much easier one to answer the district court ruled probable cause that my client was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit murder is not the crime identified either by the government of mexico as the basis for seeking her extradition nor is it a crime identified by the government in its complaint will matter what the magistrate called it it sure seemed to me like she was a principal and equally and she it was probably cause that she was complicit in murdering her husband i will stipulate judge kelly to the fact that there is evidence implicating my client in that crime however  overwhelming however foreign governments and the united states government have to take some terror when seeking to extradite somebody to another country to properly charge them to face trial on specific charge and so wall it may be true that there is evidence of complicity or aiding and abetting or conspiracy she was the government sought to extradite her on a charge of aggravated homicide and in order to know whether there is probable cause to think that she is guilty of aggravated aside you need to understand what the elements of that offense are i don't think it's sufficient to say looks like something pretty bad happened here let's send her back extradition treaties don't work that way there's a whole series of procedural and substantive protections that limit the basis that an individual can be extradited that  they're requesting country can do once extradition is accomplished the collateral consequences of an extradition and the list goes on and on which judge the man just read judge or the district judge is charged with that challenge was confused about the charge if the judge the magistrate judge who actually ordered extradition knew darn well in expressly stated that it was based on aggravated sure and i agree that given the unusual question the magistrate judge found probable cause and yes we have some erroneous language by the district court talking about conspiracy but the magistrate found probable cause for the crime she was charged why isn't there why can't we just go ahead and talk about whether there was some the same gap in law with the magistrate judge that you have when the government says let's forget about conspiracy and then firm on an alternate crown the problem with the magistrate's ruling is she says is i think that waiver argument has been weighing the government did not raise the point that your honor is raising as a bar to the issue we're presenting to this or the only reason this is coming out this because we got some erroneous language by the i agree with my point is the government is not alleging waver in that regard number one the second point is and i was i'm not going to tell you there are no cases holding that the principles of waiver apply an extradition case or that standards of plain error apply to waive arguments in hideous cases but i will tell you that i looked and i did not find any not a one and so we are in this kind of curious area of the law which is has sort of just developed out of this one thousand nine hundred supreme court case and from what i have seen what i can glean from the cases is if you challenge probable cause before the magistrate as we clearly did you get to challenge probable cause all the way through the process and you're not in change the bases anywhere along the way of what you're challenging as the basis for probable cause you're now saying they didn't charge her and that she's not guilty as a principal and i think that's i think that's what you're you know i think so because because of the nature of this court's review which is to know about it's very limited and it says is there evidence of probable cause the the question that she was not the shooter she may have been you don't have to be the shooter who could be guilty of aggravated murder well that's the question well it's not a question for us it's a question for the mexican government on trial i argue is the government well it's aiding and abetting law it's aiding and abetting which in the tenth circuit under bowen is not a charge of the theory of liability you don't have to charge somebody with aiding and abetting and i'd say every person is charged with aiding and  we don't need to know all you need to know it is probable cause not not anything beyond that well and your own view everything be on no i'm arguing that in order to see if the facts support a reasonable suspicion that crime has been committed you have to know what the crime in question is and in this case there has to be some statutory or legal basis under mexican law to say that my client is guilty of aggravated homicide when we know she wasn't the trigger man i'm not saying that there is no law in this country that would support that conclusion i'm saying we don't know i don't know  know and the district court didn't know if there's any mexican law that does so if you don't know and you haven't told us what the elements of the law of chihuahua are with and you haven't given us the law of chihuahua and i hope i'm pronouncing it correctly then how are we to say that based on your theory with nothing presented part of your question it is not my burden to disprove probable cause it is the government's burden to establish probable cause and i will readily admit that i have no expertise whatsoever in the law of chihuahua it is the bird was behind this from the get go that she was going to pay the trigger man by letting her letting him steal the jewelry or how she was the one living in the house that she was the one that told the new shooter where he was going to  but death under chihuahua dog does not equal criminal liability for aggravated homicide under the law of chihuahua and so we say ok let's get into the kelly said how to quickly say there's not reasonable grounds to believe that she caused the death of another human being appellant has done i think she has said shown the government has failed to establish that there is probable cause for a crime under mexican law when the government fails to meet its burden to point the court and me to the law that was violated and the facts that fit that law they have failed to meet their burden of proof and i don't have to i think is the appellant turn around and say here's my you know disposition on chihuahua lot and look at how article twenty one it was construed in this case and look at the wall over here the government footnote five page twenty two it's the end of their brief they call us out for citing the man arrow case for the in the district of columbia is like i think that's a fair point but if it's a fair point as between the two mexican sovereigns it's a much better point as applied to two sovereign nations and in this case the only thing the government has done before any court of law is point to what the want in the united states is about things like complicity and aiding and abetting and conspiracy they have not told anyone the first thing about colleagues as well as yourself that because you're at a time that instead of for this rule suggests that we can judicially notice that you will have any objection to a school in that i do because i don't same thing this same thing as mexico here's a bunch of actually statutory provisions that prove it and i said i don't know how do i know those things article twenty one the things they want you to take notice of don't have to be charged as an offense i don't know that they said nothing that suggests that now i will say with your indulgence make a final point on your question if i may if you if you're really really really quick so i pored through the record in the extradition request seeing if there was any clue as to how article twenty one actually works under mexican law and you can look for that look at the findings of the mexican oral trial court that convicted ray of his involvement in this crime there's two references to article twenty one excuse me that there are a page one hundred and one hundred first look to the arrest warrant that is part of the supplemental cd which was attached the extradition request based one twelve this is where we have the arrest warrant for miss of iraq most issued by the trial the judge and the page baby one fourteen the judge lays out the three elements the second element of which is causation elements that judge bacharach reference the court then says i'm going to talk about the facts that show that these elements are satisfied and it goes on for seventeen pages talking about the fact baby one thirty one of the record the court said quote consequently it is true that we can establish the ground of probability that if your ramos and archer already were the acting parties they themselves carried out the crime a crime of homicide in compliance with article eighteen one and twenty one five article twenty one that's my post scuffing a little bit further down it then says it is therefore inferred that the probable participation that their probable participation as acting parties proved and the court then issues and arrest warrants so there you have a judge in chihuahua applying chihuahua law to do use particular back and saying that's aggravated holmes we don't just have him now we have three other judges three different judges in chihuahua and you'll see that buying five of the record page ninety eight and three pages in page one hundred one we have a translation of article twenty one of the trial the code says that it's titled forms of office and participation and then translated paragraph five that says a the treating saying that homicides in article in the appendix and then in the tree itself article article two paragraph four basically lists attempts conspiracy in participation as ways that you can commit any of those and offenses and the more charitable reading here is that the district court judge wasn't trying to set up a separate offense he was simply reviewing the probable cause hearing the district court yet about one paragraph where he discusses this and i think when he's talking about conspiracy it's simply an in artful way trying she didn't pull the trigger but if the court were fence of conspiracy those are the points that i want to make unless the court grants for the question i'm happy to see the remainder of my time thank you very much