the violations that are left in this complaint to understand you are you are gravely that under these circumstances the crab was not contraband yes because it's not like heroin it's not like counterfeit currency it's that somehow this second phrase we used to interpret the first statement of contraband but i don't know as or a case that tells us that we're supposed to interpret it that way let me give you the background of the question or is disjunctive a simple reading of the statute it would say it's contraband or other property that is illegal to possess if that's true then regardless of how you define contraband which is the majority of the briefs if it is property that is illegal to possess then it comes within the statute now isn't this property that it's illegal to possess it's potentially subject to forfeiture of the government i've got to see this hasn't been proven but if the property had been involved in some you know unknowing russian fishing violation my guy imports that under the structure of a culpability in order to obtain a forfeiture so my guy you know could could have imported you know purely innocently but still been subject to place you forfeiture under thirty have some other type of liability attached and congress wanted to import that general defense to cover the whole the whole field of statutes and so i would say that after care for a while this may have been true prior to two thousand after after care for there is when one seems to be intending to inform the interpretation of the other it's proper to look at sort of both sides of the or phrase to see how they would have you wan other citrus fruit you've got a situation where you know you got something that's being defined again by the second part of the phrase and i think i cited the microsoft case there's an earlier case i don't remember last year or something to deal with them or situation i think the proper judicial in those cases were you know films tapes or other similar reproduction and you know they think use most of the things that i've been able to come up with you know just sort of doing the mental exercises you know people have some point described as contraband there is no no effect to what congress really do the language congress used i think they were using  focus the standards for determining leave the car in one thousand nine hundred fifty eight plymouth is treated as contraband but it's clearly this type of property you know even though it got referred to in a supreme court case you know it's contraband group you know derivative contraband it's clearly this type of property the interpret it contraband in one way or another very wouldn't be any kind of principle distinctions because contraband hasn't been used in the past well given is also defined as you know the illegal importing and exporting of goods i agree and i think it's unlikely it's hard to imagine that they intended this kind of cottony to be in play finally and here you know if you look back you know just to cases that haphazardly used the term hunter when you wouldn't be coming up to some kind of principled definition of the term contraband i think the best place to look for what congress intended by the term contraband is elsewhere in africa if you look at the portions of conference that refer to for example you know why would anything else no matter how what kind of evil is connected with computer to return why can't you return contraband it's because contraband is something which people can't assert legitimate ownership interest in and i think that's what the house bill that was never actually acted by the congress they rely on the house report one zero six ninety two which was reporting on the original version of h r six hundred fifty eight or federal or foreign law are contraband and they use the term specifically a multiple occasions in the in the legislative history would be property that would be otherwise illegal to possess well for example  property that you can talk about which which may be not contraband but are legal to possess because of the circumstances surrounding it and i've given a couple of examples going to did mr goldman just say the problem with calling a property that this the case where they were greatly involved in this and having masters on board and and the rest of that let's let's just assume that needs to be in this position merely purchased the position is then because there's strict liability on the racing that it was illegal to possess this even if a person didn't know where it came from that it was illegal to to import transport products that were intercepted at the border with the exception of one and that was product that was traced from the border to the importer and seized from here good night with my position of that crab in my refrigerator be subject to a forfeiture crab the contraband fish like in the salmon case of this before this court it becomes hard to be and when it's taken in violation of was so was i mean it's illegal to begin with and therefore if any of the us and we just don't have to reach those issues your honor i would however like to point out that this case does involve a sophisticated international seafood poaching and smuggling town defender crab was worth between one and two million dollars on the international attempted to be smuggled in the united states for marketing in this country playing with us in this case weren't privy with those who violated the russian loss and this is precisely the kind of case the police the actor was just trying to deal with and was one of the that because of the strict for which are law it is in effect contraband and therefore you're not allowed to have the innocent exception and i think i think prior to the creation of yours and  defense that that if that was correctly describing what the law was like it was treating it as an effect contraband you got the same treatment you did for her one of the strict liability for sure they took it away from you you didn't have any rights to to contest it based upon your personal culpability it is