two questions for review by this court the first whether the civil remedy provisions in the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act which is a very hard statute to keep saying so i may refer to it as the t v p r a which is now a lot easier which is such found in section fifteen ninety five of title eighteen may be applied retroactively and extra territorial to conduct which occurred entirely outside of the territory of the united states in fact in yemen and it occurred prior to the effective date  section fifteen ninety six the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act which was effective on december twenty third two thousand and eight there is no dispute in this case that all of the conduct at issue in this case took place outside the territory of the united states in yemen and that it all took place prior to december twenty third two thousand and eight that is a case of first impression before this court in fact it is a case of first impression before every appellate court in the united states except the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit and that court decided in  versus k b r incorporated that section fifteen ninety six the extraterritoriality application could not be applied extraterritoriality or retroactively to govern conduct occurring prior to the effective date of the statute in in two thousand and eight in this case that is the only appellate court that has decided the issue and frankly it's decided howard there are issues in the case which of course would some would argue make it a fact dependent analysis and may serve to help distinguish cari from the facts at issue in this case which is precisely what the district court did in this case the district court specifically in the i'm sorry i did your honor i was trial i was lead trial counsel accompanied by mr and said he understood completely why i was doing it and the fact of the matter is when judge a grady in the district as the district court course specifically was analyzing this he pointed out the fact that this is a  he pointed out that he believes this is a fact specific inquiry if the court the judge agrees opinion is found beginning on page i believe it's one forty four of the joint appendix and the issue that he talks about has to do with how he distinguishes cari and thereby gets to a place where the statute can apply the point is i think this court is all aware that if in fact the traffic new civil remedy provisions of the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act cannot be applied retroactively an extra two or term really to govern this conduct that is a matter of law fifty ninety one at least that allows for special maritime jurisdiction that's also true your honor but the question is whether is whether it extended the simple cause of action as opposed to inspector first special maritime jurisdiction for at least fifteen ninety one and the fifteen eighty nine and fifty nine you don't have that special marriage provision fifty nine you want and will fifteen section seven the point as opposed to a criminal extension in united states versus sorrow which is a case that the circuit decided in two thousand and nine and i do recognize that massaro was a criminal case but the language of specifically states your honor that that section that that section of the special maritime extended jurisdiction it didn't say it's extended jurisdiction our position your honor is that as far as any violations snatching to the extent that it creates a cause of action for simple mind ups seeking damages that oh i know you can your honor i'm well aware that you can affirm on a different ground zero point is you've got a civil cause of action and it was it was ruled extraterritorial at a later point in time but at the then you're going to be liable for a lot of very damaging then you may be liable for monetary damages monetary damages and the and the point that my colleague was making that fifty ninety one and i don't know that you need to go much much beyond that i don't feel too bad about doing this because to me the civil cause of action was later explicitly rule statutes applied extraterritorial and it doesn't you know that seems to be the rule of law and also doesn't bother me that there was a sizable to have you warn here because what statutes i'm saying to myself this is this kind of human trafficking and i'm an abusive busa of behavior is exactly what congress is after and so it doesn't seem to sorry no i'm not not in not in this appeal although although our second issue which i'm going to get to our second issue has to do with the fact that we that but also under four fifteen he helped to i understand all of that but for zero four be requires evidence of misconduct by a party and russell howard had been dismissed from the case was not a party for fifteen refers to sexual activity and for fifteen specifically talks about that sort of activity i want to phrase this question correctly the the event in question with respect to jane doe occurred in tokyo afterwords it didn't occur prior to prior to the  well because  argue i actually made that argument your honor well but but you know i'm not going to be i would just no i don't think it i do think that the question is more important than simply a way question it has to do with the juror don't think so your honor was already held by judge a granny to be wrong and that's the point it's not a weighty issue the point of the matter is that if we will look very carefully at four o four that had to do with all parties misconduct if we and thirty two seventy one was enacted in two thousand and six with with respect to this conduct so it clearly governed it would have governed it if it apply but it doesn't and the reason it doesn't do why should  may i answer with respect to fifteen ninety six which was adopted in two thousand and eight it doesn't it doesn't say anything about which section and as far as fifty ninety one fifty ninety  one if one looks at the language of the statute this is death to ninety one doesn't extend extra term term really but it uses criminal language just like thirty two seventy one did it does does it really matter because official who on u s embassy grounds not only enticed and recruited a former u s embassy some contractor to work as a live in housekeeper in her u s embassy home but she also utilize u s embassy position to coerce that live in housekeeper to submit to sexual salt and rapes in exchange for pay which was funded by the u s government and the question before your honor sedate is whether a presumption jury below unequivocally found violates the trafficking victims protection act and the answer to that question your honour's is no for three reasons first as your own as pointed out in your r j are the law is clear if the civil remedy  the congress intended something like this to just fall through the cracks i don't i mean it there are statutes everywhere around it and they did they didn't die a final tail fifty ninety six but that is sure if if you if you take these statutes empowering materia and and looked at the civil cause of action and the criminal predicates you say yes this is exactly what congress was after this is exactly the kind of behavior and con misconduct that the congress wa to for bid on the part of state department employees i mean you get america gets this the statutes here sort of britain with the recognition that america gets a terrible name if its state department employees go over and treat foreign nationals or vulnerable employees in this fashion first things first with respect to judge king's question if you look at the second question presented it was not only for zero four four fifteen but it had to do without court hearsay statements made by russell i just didn't have time to and certain traffic in new fences provides in addition to any domestic jurisdiction otherwise provided by law the courts of the united states have extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offense order and any attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense under sections fifteen eighty one fifteen eighty three fifteen eighty four fifteen eighty nine fifteen ninety or fifty ninety one i'm just looking to try to find a page number now it's in out a car it's in title b the t v p r a claim and it's right down at the bottom of the first paragraph letter i'm looking for a page number in my westlaw you know fifteen ninety one is clearly included there as one of the things that was listed in two thousand and eight which may be why judge grady didn't rely on it i don't thirteen thirty two seventy one in  your honor i understand the horrific international consequences of human trafficking i also understand that in the context of an appellate argument from a jury award i'm very limited in what i can challenge about the findings that were made by the jury despite perhaps the introduction of evidence that might have swayed another way by mr doe's testimony which came at the end of the trial i understand that but the point is that the conduct an issue in this case i think the record will show that my client has i understand the jury chose a different way but my client consistently not only denied her involvement but denying that her husband who had passed away was ever guilty of any of those she didn't believe  she probably wouldn't be the first wife who was in that situation and i'm sorry to say but i'm not going to defend human trafficking but the fact of the matter is this conduct occurred in two thousand and seven it occurred in yemen and it occurred levon years ago at a time when section when the civil remedy provisions did not apply overseas thirty to seventy one and we've got three pages of our civil we had we have three pages of legislative history including statements by the author of the bill representative chris smith who has authored most of the trafficking victims act who makes it  clear that that extended criminal jurisdiction not civil jurisdiction so thirty to seventy one which is what judge o'grady mentioned and what the defense of the the plaintiff in this case was relying on doesn't apply to this case fifty nine the one is as all i can say is it's included here i understand that the court is sympathetic to the plaintiffs i understand that but conduct if your honor goes back to the beginning about a car and sees what the facts were in not a car and that was a whole lot worse it was pretty i mean they're not not i'm not minimizing the contact here but it's all kinds of horrific misconduct go on in the world and the horrific conduct that took place in not a chari did not prevent the circuit from finding that you have to go with the language of the statute at the time and i honor that is correct that is correct i meant to say that and i got involved in the argument because i promised i would look i did not see a reference to the crime i looked at the statute in fifteen ninety one as it applied at that time and i think that was and i may be wrong because i didn't have much time to look your honor i had like fifteen minutes i think that the statute fifteen ninety one back at that time applied principally to conduct involving children but i'm not sure about that and i don't want to make a universal representation to this court to the contrary but the question is when the court looks this honorable court stands adjourned until tomorrow morning god save the united states in this honorable court