of this i provide no basis for categorically denying touristic sion to an entire group of cases but that is exactly what the district court did and holding that recognition actions are effectively a dead letter under the commercial activities exception instead the plain language of clause three of the exception requires the plaintiff at the jurisdictional stage to prove only three things st that the s based upon act outside of the united states nd that the not to be in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign sovereign elsewhere and rd that it causes direct effects here in the united states clause to also requires only an act performed in the united states in connection with the commercial activity of the foreign sovereign elsewhere the lumpia suit satisfies both of these clauses st under clause three obvious complaint is based upon an act outside of the united states the entry of judgment in tanzania tanzania admits that the judgment is the grommet of the suit and a fact without which they will lose the recognition action therefore i will focus on that particular aspect of the war brief details the bank separate acts as well tanzania and the district court mis read the statute by treating this like a clause one case which must be directly based upon the commercial activity itself under clauses two dollars and three dollars they require only and act that is merely in connection with a commercial acted elsewhere and as the supreme court explained in nelson congress manifestly understood the difference between those two things the judgment is precisely such an act and that action need not be commercial  federal republic of nigeria the act there was the attorney general of nigeria sovereign act of sending a letter to the u s department of justice and referring the plaintiff to prosecution  prosecution nigeria those were sovereign acts but they were in connection to commercial activity that caused direct effects here spend courts read based upon pretty tightly why wouldn't we like what it's read in exemptions with a fair reading rather than a narrow reading unless there's some basis in the text to show otherwise and there's nothing here that would indicate the rule should being somehow limited view of a connection with and this is clearly in connection with under any definition of the term because we're talking about a judgment that was expressly referencing and based upon a commercial contract to sell military equipment this is again the jurisdiction stage we know that payments were made through a new york bank account tanzania's federal reserve bank account of new york i don't have any further information there's nothing further on the record to you know exactly precisely identify which bank account it was paid to but regardless the alley or snow are there allegations that mr bellamy i was living in the united states or never here the allegations nine subsequent opinions from the tanzanian courts that are in the appendix state that the bank admitted that payments were made up until nine hundred and ninety one and thus they were i'm sorry two thousand and one and thus were made in connection with the judgment itself they were after the judgment was the st judgment was entered and the payments were made directly in connection with that judgment  did your claim survive under our holding him where the existence of the individual after the events giving rise to the case in the united states wasn't enough to support the direct until tanzania confiscated his passport and preclude him from further travel the record did not reveal when that he was a chance of me and citizen right he spent most of his time in precedent it wouldn't be sufficient that tanzanian citizen gets his judgement and then moves to the us right so i mean it's just doesn't seem that different to me the actual case which is the tanzanian citizen has a judgment and then he dies some family members who happened to be in the us succeed to his rights from the moment the judgment was in her it was it was in the name of mr bill labia and family and that was based upon language in the orbital agreement that said he and his family would be entitled to forty five percent so the moment insured it was due to people who were living in the united states and became citizens as well in the united states and whether mr belong to himself was traveling back and forth at various times is irrelevant recognize this is not a breach of contract action but they definitely there is no doubt that they agreed to pay the bill on the a family and the direct effects or are found here from in a number of consequence of its activities tanzania transferred funds from its new york bank account to pay them along because both before and after the judgment and those payments after the judgment are definitely in connection with the judgment and cour similarly found direct impacts based upon the failure to pay to return property to persons known to live in the united states for example the disassembled case as well as the past practice of making payments through  bank the trans american case and went to individuals where they were making payments to them in the united states and it's your burden to establish jurisdiction to the extent that the record doesn't doesn't establish where the payments were made out stage which is simply to allege the element of under clauses three and and clause two and to the extent jurisdictional discovery was required tanzania should have asked for that and we just simply didn't have the opportunity not having even gotten out of the gate because the district court confused the clauses two and three with thinking that this was essentially a clause one case and if you take that away and look at tanzania has admitted we have to grab them and have the suit is the judgment and that it's a fact without which we will lose the this case is definitely based upon the judgment it's in connection with commercial activities expressly references those commercial activities the commercial contract and it causes direct effects here but there is no doubt about where peanuts we made in addition after the after mr belong via place of performance only although expressly limited is holding to breach of contract case as it said in breach of contract case is this the rule and it makes no sense to apply such a rule in a recognition action because a record  judgment generally doesn't give the place of performance it is due it a tragedy it sets an amount certain to do that the defendant must pay and the plaintive if that if the defendant does not pay that amount  not is in opposite from from our case what we've got a judgment payable to parties who have always been since intrigue present in the united states demanding payment in the united states past practice of making payments and that one says the money has to be paid to the registrar of the court and borrow so yes your honor so what about that so that is at the execution stage we it does simply because tanzania had failed to pay it on the st judgement and the execution stage it's not unusual for a court to come in and say you're going to pay the judgment has no place of performance whatsoever you just made a point judgment creditor can generally try to execute wherever so what in the judgment view he's here are you know just claiming it i think it's certainly a relevant fact but it's not necessary in my opinion because this is not a breach of contract suit but i do think that it is to to pay them wherever they were found and they are found here and they were paid through a new york bank with us dollars so it's not a surprise that they're to be paid here so you had mentioned to sample but as we said and  distinguish to settle because the direct effect of there was tied to the fact that there was a bailment contract with specific performance and obligations to turn over the artwork to the united states necessarily it did contemplate one or the other payment of the funds i mean the artwork i think with the preferred method but for example the artwork weren't available you would compensate the plaintiff for that  we as we characterize that animal recent case in the key to the court's reasoning was the hungry have promised to perform specific obligations in the united states that's from the moment of contract formation did you make sure sometimes no we did not but neither to tanzania suppose instead of living gating to judgment in tanzania on the specs the family had brought a breach of contract action in a united states court and then broke the commercial activity exception with that case fall under if the contract was entered with the same thing direct with him i would think well that you need an act in the united states and whether by the foreign sovereign so there you don't necessarily know and not in the united states unless you're accepted you would be you would be within the four corners of contract with the facts of our case with actual past practice of making payments through york account in u s dollars i think could support the cause to if there are pain it's through your bank account there's an act in the united states and it's not we just need an out that's in connection to the commercial activity that causes direct effects here and we have alleged all of those those things we've got an act it's based upon him and he doesn't dispute of the suit is in connection with a commercial contract that judgment expressly references that commercial contract and applies multiple direct effects here that together support a finding of direct effect if you congress would have made it easier you know six same facts except you litigate to judgment in tanzania but why would it be easier to enforce stage to the time we recognize judgments from other states other countries that is part of our the comedy in respect that would give to other judgments and there's no basis in the f s a to say that that congress would allow that and that it as long as we satisfy the jurisdictional stage the showing of all three of the elements implies three or the two elements and one to then we have gotten past the jurisdictional stage and  whether i understand that but there are lots of cases in the context of direct merits litigation i suppose to enforcement what a geisha where the supreme court in our court has said you the the the the say show this is really the concern is that we have a sufficient connection to the united states and so in your hypothetical if there is not a sufficient kind of connection to the united states well then sovereign immunity would remain intact and and that's the end of the story but here we have a sufficient connection to the united states we have x we have both x in the united states we have payment due to citizens of the united states they are here they've been demanding money since the beginning and immediately this is not the kind of it's not a  please of course lawrence martin on behalf of a pelleas that all referred to collectively as tanzania for the sake of convenience i want to start with something that he pretty just said which was that the concern of the f s a commercial and whenever a political a couple of things about a time when they knew he was living in the united states but i don't think the record reflects that in fact that letter is addressed to mr billow in faith and family had even contemplated moreover as we've now heard appellants principle argument is that this this action is based on the entry of judgment and so in that sense  the judgment on which opponents now rely is not an act in connection with a commercial activity of hands and yet moreover we don't think there's a direct effect in the united states if in find we think a nd circuit has called for a new hero reading of in connection with i'm not sure that it's necessary to characterize the reading that it gave it as an arrow in connection is obviously susceptible of a lot of different definitions controversy is pending in a court and the court enters judgment that's in connection with that underlying controversy well i think it's certainly there's certainly a  connection i guess your argument is that based on the legislative history and it's i mean it's pretty tight connection right you litigate a commercial claim you get a judgment on the claim it's very different from you know you right but your theory is not just tight your theory is airtight right there would be no ability to enforce the judgment no matter how direct the effect in lobby and so on but your theories too bad because this isn't a contract claim it's an enforcement action and the judgment is either too remote from the contractor worries to s exception to sovereign immunity for judgment recognition actors who could do this you do that for arbitration or for example in the case of the arbitration exception it specifically said that among the structures this exception so that and again hypothetical case with the direct effect the party skin litigate the underlying controversy in the u s direct because there's a direct effect but if they litigate to judgment somewhere else they can't enforce in a u s court doesn't that seem odd assuming there's a direct effect yes yes ok i'm so late in your arguments to respect the sovereignty of the various countries and in the case and wish the judgment creditor or that the creditor decides to bring the suit within the system about sovereign nation exist for the commercial activity and i couldn't imagine a tighter connection is part of it and if you ask anybody who is expecting to be paid for their services it would be if they wouldn't be doing commercial commercial dealing or particular transaction at issue and that's to be really close is that i think the legislative history of the case law stands that said i think  case also fails because there is no direct effect in the united states as screeners have noted in your questioning the case law of this court use play  restrictive in what constitutes good and doesn't cost direct effect here the judgment which is the act upon which their claims words to you based doesn't explicitly contemplate performance in the united states in fact in two thousand and one girl she ordered as the chief judge gurley noted cultural performance in doris along so there's there's nothing that creates a direct effect within the meaning of understand how you distinguish he based upon commercial activity from the in connection with commercial activity it seems to me that your definition of in connection with is so narrow that it becomes almost indistinguishable from based upon it and those are clearly two different meanings within the statute i again with great respect this is not just our interpretation of the connection with i think as i said just for purposes of making just might my point was simply reporting acknowledges there that there is some connection between the act in the commercial activity but that connection in connection with commercial activities and so i'm not i'm not seeing the causal relationship between the two in this case it's the commercial activity that actually caused  the recognition judgment it's the breach of the contract in what sense did the expropriation cause the partial activity in the other case well it was a sense that before the expiration there wouldn't have been the subsequent commercial activity  that's not what the but but but the gravel mine which is required by the fund for was the commercial activity which happened after the expiration of the four well i think he had to grab them in is the thing that the precise thing the recognition judgment i think the rd circuit decision in the adler case or has the universe time there you had a loan transaction concluded in the netherlands lose our recognition action and i would respectfully point the court to pages twenty dollars to twenty one dollars of their brief where they do admit that the judgement is a fact without which we would lose our recognition action it is basically the st element of a recognition action is that you have a judgment and we have that i would also addressing that the questions about in connection with them how tightly tanzania's is requesting the court judgment it is in from there from the beginning the money was owed to them here they are demanding it here payments were made through new york bank and the payments are due in u s dollars and when you say it's over to the bahamas in the united states what is the basis for your in the united states part of that sentence it feels to me rather keiji if you don't mind that it's you have alleged knowledge on the part of tanzania you haven't pointed to text that shows the so we don't have an allegation about exactly when knowledge was gained but i would you know i think the fact that tanzania agreed to pay along and family and it was known in our complaint alleges it was known that they were in the united states and in fact payments were made through a united states bank account so there really is no surprise but even if knowledge w between the ninety one judgment and the two thousand and one judgment i mean the fact the matter is tanzania new and our allegations are sufficient given all reasonable inferences in favor of the allegations in the complaint of this court