it please the court my name is lauren valastro and i represent the gallery of helen's this case is about access to justice for foreign land owners harmed by every month certifiers conduct in vermont ok what is the nature of the injury that your clients have suffered by virtue of the conduct of rainfall the not the extent of it not that we need a trial what bad thing has happened to your client as a result property damage in the flooding no tell me what really the trees cleared rainforest alliance didn't cut any trees increase the risk of be ecological forestry standards what harm did they cause to your client was all they did was say those folks used good ecological forestry standards that's not all they did big directed the cutting of the question right it's your home and the mexican courts have held that they do not own it no not at all there are four places in the mexican court order in which the mexican court was clear that the galleys own the property that was in dispute while they own the property in the deeds but not the property falling within the certification it does the mexican court ever other than the two thousand and one is the mexican court ever determined one way or another that the galleys do or do not own the property yes your honor didn't they stood in the mexican courts say the galleys own the property in their deeds but frankly we can't tell from the deeds whether this property is in there or not isn't that what the mexican courts said no what the mexican court said is we can't specifically identify precisely where the trespassers occupying the land of the galleys do on you that wasn't exactly hard read it but ok but you but there was a failure of proof in the mexican corn rice field are proof so there is no definitive decision from the mexican court that the trespassers as you call them are actually on land that you own that's correct but the court was clear there the galleys do own the property if if you look at that told me you just told me that i was court didn't say that that the court said that there was still an open question because there was a failure proof maybe i was unclear though court in mexico said that the galleys failed to identify exactly his claims of negligence and slain are title against rain forest alliance said that it was possible for judge reese to determine ownership and trespass for the purposes of your tort claims and it really wouldn't matter whether that had any bearing on what was the fact on the ground in mexico did i understand you to say that she does not have to touch the issue of trespass because the rain touched the issue of ownership yes your honor but the how  and the only things that need to be considered are those coordinates and where the galleys in the property of mexican court dismissed the galleys claim to the ownership of the property certification covered parts of our property and certainly we believe x is trespassing on the injuries supposedly that is cutting down your tree right can you repeat that i'm sorry and  is trespassing on and cutting down your trees right you have no injury of ag is not trespassing because your theory is that they're on your land and your tree well there's also slander to a title claim in which rain for also requires actions they lost on their various claims which were predicated on owning the property true they satisfied that element the ownership element they did fail to prove the specific location of the tr property but who slandered my clients title you're correct your honor that the galleys have the opportunity to pursue relief against acts of but for mon is the only place which i believe agreed and no relief requested here directly affect access and the court can craft that kind of relief somewhere on the mexican border a resolution about the title over right or is a no no your honor we don't believe that that mexican litigation had any definitive effect on the the title of the property i don't believe a trust us action here would have any effect on the title ownership of property if this were a white total action in mexico we would be admittedly in a different posture and you slander titles not  that you know that the that's another reason why ever much and should get involved in the mexican land in a it's not unclear water then the mexican litigation can be put aside entirely and the claims that issue here are where rain forest service and the galleys property and if the galleys can't prove that they own that property they can't prove it but they are entitled to the opportunity to try and vermont course have been allowing that kind of transitory on the land in fact as i believe this court judge macmahon in particular was not in what the mexican court said was the galleys own the property in their deeds but that it went on to say and this is it a one one ninety six with respect to the sort of area a one hundred ninety six it's a little hard to see because the numbers are stamped on top of the truth and yes it's so it's if you go to the top pages it would be at any one of twenty one yes  not if that issue is not realty gated there is no way that the galleys can state a claim for either slander of title or negligence undermount law and so for that reason we believe that this is a straightforward case of international comedy and their response to galle is treated as a form nine comedian type case and i think that's why you maybe see those strands talked about by the district court but one of the factors that the district court did talk about which is often an important factor in the form one convenience trend is kind of hinted to them in their reply brief but they do so in our view based on the statements about the information that was presented below so the galleys state i believe at page five to six of their reply brief that there was information presented below as to the unfairness essentially that there was maybe fraud in this proceeding or corruption but what they cite is that a one hundred sixty one to a one a one one seventy five the record and those are not documents suggesting that there was any fraud or impropriety in the mexican  action those are complaints that the galleys filed with the national human rights connection commission in mexico essentially asking you to turn in general to initiate criminal proceedings against acts of no statement whatsoever that the mexican trespass court was in fact with any sort of corruption the other statement they make in their brief and i believe this is at ph for the reply brief is that there is some new previously unavailable evidence new satellite imagery that they would like to but if you look at what they cite for that filed which is it a two to a five and he doesn't say anything about this being new evidence or new techniques that he would rely on in fact on the contrary he says that he's been doing this kind of work for twenty five years there's there's no suggestion that was ever made to the district court about  previously unavailable evidence and so the district court correctly recognized that the galleys had not submitted any sort of basis as to why international comedy would not be applied and if the court would like me to address our arguments with respect to what exactly is the nature of the duty that rain forest alliance owes to new york line that's easy in the principles that they apply the very first stakeholder in faith undertake to protect our land owners and even people with potential claims to land they say we can't really know if the rain forest alliance was never hired by your clients you don't have any kind of contractual relationship you don't have any kind of business dealings with rain forest alliance you mean some general ho tory principle creates a duty on the part of rain forest and winds to every person who owns land on this planet that they certified the ownership of they didn't certify the ownership they certified that good tree cutting practices the ownership they did state that the galleys don't own the property and that agfa does counsel pointed out page and one one ninety six the bottom of and the bottom of the pain and the mexican court says that the plaintiffs titles do not correspond to the area of land he claims the respondent has in his possession how is that not a determination that the galleys have failed to prove ownership of property within the certification i'm not an expert on mexican of land he claims the respondent has in his possession as a fact finding the discrepancies in that are free and if and this is why we presented our ass the district court to look final point on that to fully answer your question final point sure the heads are on the mexican expert upon which the entire orders base and the appeal decision to he initially stated that the galleys absolutely proves their ownership location of the trespass and then eighteen months later with no rush no basis at all he decided that because there are a few feet of the mexican court heard the experts and made