independent the only reason that they found foreign sovereign immunity to apply to it in that previous case was because they held that those that they were acting and a public public activity in furtherance of the sovereign isn't but  employees of the government or certainly nothing nothing like the defense minister in the case for example the this is an administrative body that may be aligned with you know and have authority and one  a sovereign interest and the action of the fence minister and the defense minister was clearly authorized to engage in military conduct which is what happened there in this case again i want the court back to not just status but conduct this is conduct based immunity  the way it was alleging the complaint that's what the complaint alleges that they were acting on behalf of right they were acting yes they were acting as investigators that's what they that's what they purport to be doing but but that's not all they were doing and they were bribing and threatening and not to register and if they were actually acting on behalf of a foreign government if that's what they were doing then they were required to register with the attorney general under eighteen u s c one hundred and fifty one dollars but they didn't do that so was out would that with the permission of the u k the u k say i just go i don't go on over to the u s and investigate and while you're at it you know bribes witnesses and intimidate people and commit fraud and don't bother registering like you're supposed to under that pesky statute to the u k really do that pretty hard to believe and certainly there's no evidence that they did it again unlike indo in where there was an express ratification by the foreign sovereign o mean certainly in this main to the extent that they were acting at their direction then they are pulled into this i'm going to prime our conduct in the us of course was occurring through maine and louise but to the extent that the that member of the tribunals and again all of these people work together which is what's alleged in the complaint that in a single a singular enterprise and a comparison easily conspired together they are responsible for one another a and other individuals in the u k for racism this was his reward for that work and that's what this was really about that's what all of these individuals were involved in so if the government of the united kingdom wants to condone that homme activity and condone the improper activity portions of that activity that occurred here in the u s against a u s citizen here and do whatever they want it is and call it you know in the name of their government in fact we have a law against that at least without notice but what it really is is about maintaining the relationships between the sovereigns and where the su sounds the governments of the savants have not weighed in it's not appropriate for this court to say oh we're going to find immunity and again i have come back to doeg and what is your position that absent a state department without i guess there is there is you know maybe not necessarily i'm not sure the court has to go that far here i don't think the court has to go far because in this case we had neither one we actually had none in joke and there were basically three factors that the court these foreign sovereign form unity and a state department request is either one of those dispositive i'm not clear at this point but certainly without either one we have to really question why we would be he was trying to influence others influence witnesses in a proceeding that is not the sort of thing that is subject to litigation privilege in california and as to the rico claim the court improperly polled perhaps or have been cast as a denial of the motion but the bottom line is he did not grant any further relief and i think the main point here is that the record now certainly has even more evidence that he should have in fact ad granted relief or indicated that he would allow for the remain and given that now the evidence shows that maine who had sworn in declarations in court that he the relief and i think that the reasoning that he applied was i'm not going to grant relief because one of wasn't miletus governor and to it when you know i don't think it matters anyway so those were his those were his reasons i think that was a ruling on the merits of the court if probably before there is very little in dispute here that really bears directly on the issue of common law immunity the u k officials all reside outside the united states the allegations against them in the  complaint relate to conduct in connection with an investigation and disciplinary proceedings by the law society of england and wales that was conducted largely in the united kingdom in connection with the hearing that took place in the united kingdom this court already has held that the law society enjoys foreign sovereign immunity under the foreign sovereign communities act in connection with the very same disciplinary proceedings at issue if lease and main were not alleged to be acting in the course and scope of their employment the only connection to this country being their conduct here in the united states their superiors middleton and towns ought not to have been sued if they weren't acting at middleton in townsend's direction and control it's basically a paradigm case of common law sovereign immunity and as judge bay bay has suggested with his question there is no requirement of a statement of interest by the state department for this court to address the issue that's made clear by the very fact that this court already has ruled that the law society of england and wales so what how do you respond to mr james's argument that that the actions i get the primary main that main main yes and least yes they are alleged wrongdoing far exceeded went beyond the scope of authority that was granted to them by the law society well it seems like but for an allegation of conduct that they overstepped their bounds or overstepped their authority or did something wrong that's what they're alleging here but the fact of the matter is that the allegations in the rd amended complaint reflect the fact that whatever evidence was gathered by lease and manes in this country was used in the disciplinary proceedings in england for the very purpose of pursuing the administrative goals of the law society of england and wales which is they could engage in acts of bribery to get that information well in the united states i i don't believe i believe that would be an issue for the english courts not these courts yeah i mean look  this type of immunity the very nature of immunity presupposes that people who engage in some form of wrongdoing will not be brought before the courts of the united states i mean i did meeting here that think i'm just saying then i know your not that's with them but in the complaining that's right joins but it would be difficult to envisage me standing here to argue this issue were it not for the existence of a it does suggest not only the existence of an exception but more importantly the limits of that exception maybe if they murdered somebody maybe maybe i might then i might be i might feel the need to argue more strongly the dogan case under those circumstances but we're not there we're not close to one of those common law exceptions we're talking the litigation privilege point well i don't represent mr ron and it doesn't implicate my clients but i understand i stopped there about the indicative ruling issue that if it does you no honor and our view is that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion for the reasons that are stated there all of this to the extent one could call this evidence at all it was available earlier and it would not have changed the outcome most importantly  mr mayne if that was indeed a main imposter then this court would have no jurisdiction over mr main and he ought not to be sued because by definition he didn't do any of the things he's alleged to be doing in the complaint and as to the remaining defendants it doesn't affect them at all so the court was correct in suggesting that it wouldn't have any impact on the court's decision and in addition the existence of a main impostor something beyond a mile stretch  you know to send a letter to the state department without giving the state department the passport number of the individual you're inquiring about to get back an informal indication that they have no record of the person  being you know traveling to the united states it's it's double or triple hearsay and you know we don't know what investigation was conducted what what they did we really know nothing in in in opposition to that we have the declarations of mr leask mr maine and mr middleton and the whole premise of this case all along was it was their conduct that ruling and that's all he really did yes we would have to say well he abused his discretion in saying that he would not grant the motion that motion we indicated that the split among the circuits as to whether it's an appealable order because they can always you know even after this is let's say we were to refer they could always go back and as the district judge under rule sixty beat up here to open up when the when jurisdiction is back with the district court i'm laughing your honor because we've been here for eight years  i'll try to be brave the i just like to come back briefly to the prior decision in the case i'm sure the court can read it but i just want to emphasize that the court previously did hold in two thousand and fifteen that the behalf of the foreign government so that that is their role here and i just wanted to make that clear because this is an independent it is an independent body but more importantly it's just not enough to say you work for you know they work for the u s or a and it for anything goes and it's just leave it to the english courts to determine whether they committed bribery or whatever that's that's just not the way this works if  if they were committing conduct their conduct was outside of the authority of their authority then they are no longer within the umbrella or under the umbrella of common law unity and that's  whether it's an act of war and we allow for firing on a vessel when it's necessary for national security right you don't want to call that murder if he had done it if you've been running amok and he hadn't but here's a different had just been on his own out there without the authority happened to be you know in that position to order it but wasn't trying to trying to defend the state wasn't acting with israel's interest and their were within the authority of these individuals they weren't acting on behalf of the u k at that point they were running amok and i think if you twist justice around and say if we had a government employee here who went overseas one of our government employees who went overseas and started threatening witnesses and bribing people and doing you know all sorts of crimes in another country i don't think we could expect that the other sovereign would grant that person immunity nor i think when we ask them to if they're acting outside of their authority then they should be held accountable for that they no longer under that it can then claim immunity in the guise of acting on their summer day acting on of their sovereign because they are not at that point that just committing misconduct even if it is as mr dick says run of the mill investigative misconduct well by definition it doesn't matter whether the run of the mill or what it is it's misconduct it's outside