somebody they were working hand in glove on a venture all aspects of the venture including marketing sells import dealing with the f d a audits all sorts of things for it and the venture at least in are the that would be the nd step correct and they are joined now and we'll get there but what's the focus just answer that all the focus for the benefit prime would be where the benefit you know what's the focus of the statute well i think the i think the question is to try to ascertain what congress is focus was right for that part of the task and that's i mean the authority is that the line of cases is saying you should try to find out what congress is focus was the thai companies are we talking about the costs of action with regard to the american companies or what we told us with respect to the american companies for one dollar thing there's not it's not an extra territorial of them were domestic corporations they had that's right they were corporate here in the united states and some were not right and so you had made an argument with respect to a domestic application of the statue of the t v p a based on receiving benefit in the united states and to go there then you have to go into the r j r nick biscoe analysis focus and that's why i ask you about that well right away not necessarily i think where if there's a domestic application of the statute i don't think you have that problem but the other the other is i mean to if i can say i mean our main argument is that the statute is extraterritorial in any way or at the end if you look at the roe versus howard analysis issue which is a separate issue right from our standpoint i mean the u s defendants obviously are present then right are you met with respect to put time to being present and there's a twofold argument that maybe it's more full than that  your argument is a gives a subject matter but if it does in the sense that the statute is broadly defined right and so the breath the st fold is that if you come here just as an individual comes here you are present within the meaning of this that's in congress can write it that broadly but nd part hold on hold on we are but that's an interesting argument but present and when you have to be present in while the allegation while the alleged activity was taking place so if even accepting your argument that they were present and during the time that the allegations took place they wouldn't of them present and under that theory well that's that's it doesn't say that they have to be present at the time so you c have some but you could have a person who org companies been in business for one hundred years they move their operations to united states everything that they well i guess then you get statue limitations problems but everything that they've done before they moved to the subject to it's a responsibility for this kind of serious crimes hijacking act case that you're discussing address to challenge so as to whether the defendant was found in the united states when he was forcibly or arrested  is but the district court concluded that your argument that minimal contacts the person of jurisdiction analysis to decide if a corporation has sufficient presence within a form to subject itself to proceedings in the form as long as we're here why if if one assumes that the that judge nelson's skepticism about the timing here as to present seem if you write about presence a difficult thing then you would have to so i could add to your back up position in this regard aside from your benefit position would be that they did have been contacts so they were present like to know about that because there seems to be a great to see i've quite many different possibilities of our walk this participating in adventure with our knowledge is all about right and to go through the elements of all that they think it does matter right that's what i'm trying to point out but even if it didn't matter we would have facts showing that this is a venture that engaged in violations of the act which is the way that it's the find in the statute and are all your position i don't understand what recklessness knowledge and you don't want to consider that part of the statute so i think we're looking at section five thousand nine hundred and five and what does that language mean and that's confusing enough that you know we're trying to parse this this phrase they can bring a civil action against  possibility of pleadings rather than summary judgment i don't think so based on the analysis of the case they're basically saying that the law firm by providing legal services to a venture that they were not a part of they were just providing legal services  to only fifty nine dollars to one dollar for a same section that also defines venture now should we just ignore both of those definitions because the participation the venture definition is very broad and the participation in venture is pretty narrow it says knowingly assisting supporting were led to find them i think against their the words to say that participate in this and adventure doesn't necessarily mean just participating in aventura means knowingly assisting supporting or facilitating a violation even though there's nothing  well but they use that they use the kinds of words that have a general broader meaning than that participated i mean i thought it was one thing the one that the one time they got around to defining and they seem to defy it against the language i e much more with our position is that our position is that there is evidence in the record that they knew or should have known about this kind of to and it's central to this business model that for example they it and based in part at least in part on that audit they rejected the shipments so that and and from the standpoint of our evidence there was widespread violations going on at that plant right so anybody who would go there would see the housing conditions that the fact that work permits were being withheld well that's pretty speculative you don't have evidence of that because the workers housing units were elsewhere they came in on a bus a lot of the allegations should have known plus the the idea that there's trafficking and forced labor in the seafood processing is this in thailand was widely known and so there at least on inquiry notice from the standpoint of should you know if there was there they would have adventure sure but i want to get to a different point notion that you just articulated that because they generally should have known there are problems in the industry that means what the statues are trying to accomplish and would impose liabilities if you had anything to do with that country not industry was going on for more than a decade at the time this happened there's lots of evidence in the record about how closely they work together about trainings that rupa kind employ is that for part time employees about audits and prion it's that they did about the fact that they this definition in fifty nine mind what it knowingly assist knowingly assisting supporting or facilitating a violation well i think i think yes i mean if they should if they knew that they are they were clearly rubicon and wells benefited from this relationship they had access to large amounts of seafood to supply big companies they were they actually in their marketing materials had pictures of this factory and obviously it was a benefit to them and you don't have to have a financial benefit it could be anything of value even if it's the overall business model thank you unpack in this case the statute is very difficult i understand it spent many many hours going through it but want to try to simplify it if i can st for fatah and s s rosen there simply is no subject managers station for the federal court because neither one of those companies is present in the united states to suggest that personal jurisdiction is the same as subject matter jurisdiction in the st place to me makes no sense secondly as a four part federal prosecutor is not he's not saying they're the same he's because because in the universal crime world for crimes that are done overseas it has been and always will be i think it least where congress stands right now the fact that you have to have jurisdiction you have to have your life your assertion tag and i have to have that's true there are the statutes it's a physical presence but in the world of universal crime you find that there's no i mean just again from my former prosecutor days you're not going to do an international criminal in the united states in los angeles unless you have present personal physical jurisdiction but it seems it seems to me a better argument is that it the subject matter jurisdiction has to exist at the time of filing the complaint and i think that's a general proposition and you'd normally we can't i mean maybe there are some exceptions but impossible based on these let me turn if i can go to the rubicon and then after just one more nd they're not physically present because they're they don't they're not incorporated but what would make physical presence for a corporation excellent point you know i was looking at this myself your most most most multinational companies that in the world have physical presence and you know as they say have offices they have affiliates they have real agents that they have here who work for them they have subsidiaries they have lots of ways to reach over to thailand and bring these people over here to territorially i would say no i think congress is careful to limit the scope of extort already for the same reasons that you heard in the eighty s cases with you know with mor there to be careful because there's countervailing policies that are very important you know want to interfere with foreign relations taiwan is one of our greatest allies in southeast asia in a case like this where the tyco government came in and investigated that they're in a commercial relationship will certainly grant that they're in a normal supplier reseller arrangement right so to look at the statue the way it's written what ultimately is your understanding of been participate participate right in the not in the know if that's what exactly what it doesn't say there is your honor i can't read it any other way if you if you read it just as association which is really what i'm buying shrimp no matter how much you're buying is that participating in the venture isn't that the question at the end of the day i understand your argument but maybe we don't need to go that far isn't the question just what buying can be it is i truly believe that that's the only allegation or the only facts we have here is that they bought right they didn't they didn't is there any other evidence that they put any restrictions on them that would have encouraged the forced labor nothing at all you have a speculation on the facts on the other side they talk about i just heard greg small went to thailand he might have seen some stuff then everyone bothered to pos in here even with the should have known you know this wasn't a situation where the the american buyers were doing nothing they brought in an ex you know they brought in an expert in the pentagon b a p audit team to come in and look at the facilities look at how the facility was certified to be safe to work in the united by the united states entity it's a it's a national is international and i don't know where they're based but they're they're the only real seafood audit in is there any child labor is there any apparent abuse in this case the forced labor is a very subtle one you're on a deals with document servitude on issues of holding passports and holding work permits and it deals with the duchesse from things that are not apparent for someone visiting so you have to go in and dig into those issues i don't think those are the kind of apparent red flags i would be so your suggestion is that we argument that's a different problem and one way to deal with this case would be able to agree with your factual argument never get to the rest but that's a different question from whether the phrase here which seems to treat separately participation in your venture from the and then he knew or should have known at which you would be reading a new or should have known e the names just put no why should have known is this just a mens rea difference is there for the criminal and it's a i'm sorry and the other profession has no no or should have no neither is in their right so that's a whoever  new whoever knowingly benefits from participation in a venture that person knew was engaged in a crime ok fine that seems to me like getting about you know really that's just something that  participation is defined in black's law dictionary as the act of taking part in something such as a partnership a crime or trial and a venture is defined as an undertaking that involves risk especially speculative enterprise so if we apply the normal meaning understood meaning to those words what does that mean what would be the test for participating in the culture i think i think you have to add the ending of the statues as engaged in an a violation of the chapter so it's telling you what type of ventures they're talking about you're talking about adventures in gauged in the back to the question of the at least how much evidence you need of a new or should have known but and we could stop there maybe but that isn't what you're arguing arguing for something much more broad than that case you have lawyers who are providing legal services to a client which traditionally is not a basis for the lawyers being liable you don't usually have say the mob lawyers being on the hook for with their clients are doing unless they're involved in some fashion then you have maybe the example of an accountant who provides accounting services through the other examples a paper supplier or a janitorial services or somebody who inspects the packaging as it leaves or the bus drivers who bring the workers to the facility i mean there's all different kinds of ways somebody could be participating in the venture so do they have to have some stake in it do they do they i mean i think i mean if they're a cap if that's her only customer maybe they do have a stake and they have would have a reason to further the illegal activity i think your st line to this discussion is very appropriate but i would say no as long as we're doing something different than just providing legal advice they knew that there was sexual abuse going on in that compound and they were drafting agreements to give total power to the overseer and not and shield his misconduct so they were helping him in his crime and that's what rubicon has never can't possibly be accused of doing in this  particular reason relating to a website and so it had and it wasn't applied to the other provisions so that can't really be used to define participation adventure here the nd point and this is  provision but in your briefs you just about reliance on that you make very specific arguments and i can quote to you saying we're not we're not even relying on that section we're relying on an appropriate domestic application of the statute and then go and welfare for the kind of well it's right