involved in this case reach would rise to the level of under prejudice is an error and i would ask that the court well so i'm not we're under the i'm discussing the amount and the kind of assistance and yes there were yes he he putting aside that his speech is not expressive speech in the sense that you know that the sun is shining but rather do that but putting that aside for the moment yes he created the china anti cult association organization with others collaboratively for the sole purpose of subjecting falun gong as it states in the byelaws to jan which is violent suppression these campaigns have been going on in china few years since the founding of the communist party you have the landlords you have judges you have tournaments square so on and so forth he served on the two executive committees of that organization and as such he created  the tourney and well he suggested he found it he hosted on his website his television website and control the china and he called website also to  website relate to torture there are three types one calling for torture on an authoritative website which i would argue is equivalent to an order they explain why falun gong should be subjected to here in the unit states of somebody said somebody in the united states something that suggested it was you know holocaust denial oh i would that would that no no no because no no no you can use it resulted march no no no no i understand what you're saying no so that's not the case here at all so we're talking about a situation like the holocaust like rwanda like bosnia where the target people are not jewish people in our country taking camps in this country being subjected to torture and so the argument is that there is an underlying crime torture that's going on in china and that the defendant is aiding and abetting that crime through his speech acts which amount to orders because he's calling for and this is the difficulty is to say that because someone engages in speech or jane encouraging violence does that does that make that for these practices john one which is torture john which is violent suppression on authoritative party platforms and that you are ready for the proposition that calling for torture constitutes suppression or torture that get him out to an order go outside the law and torture these people go outside the law and violently suppress these people that i've been given by hook women and i also think there's some common sense behind that that if you hav  and that would have ended it but because we had oral argument in march two thousand and twelve i thought it went pretty well the judge asked me you know very very helpful at least a year and a half not two to figure out what carbo meant and you know intelligent people can disagree i mean we were arguing that the presumption went to cause of action the defendants were arguing that it went to subject manager restriction the courts were in in in now we are made a st amendment argument here and this has been going on for fifteen years as your as your mother's know it's not really the st amendment in the sense that the st member applies in china and everybody knows that what it is is exactly the question that u s or say is it would the things that he said be inside be termed incitement under u s law and the i think the answer to that is very clearly no and more in the sense that it would have to reach the point where it really was aiding and abetting it was like the in there in the international criminal court in rwanda when that one of the the tribes said bring machetes in and go kill people that's not what really happened here and into the language is much worse it's it's it's much more tain and those three words that their words that are all throughout the every brief that's ever been written here in as called a polemic seward's called cultural invective argument as the defendant is alleged to have command upon and it's honestly if there was such a a link and he would then be linked to the policies of china and this case should be dismissed on other grounds including it's a political question or you know because you know that the the appellant makes a point that this is a what's a fine line and says well this is the chinese communist party there are nine parties in china and they're not the government that's not really the case the president of china at the time was the president of thomas party his pronouncements not something we're it's not something you have to reach but if you would want to decide that that in fact that there was that that link that he was in command because of his position in the communist party it might be something in the court which would have to reach but i don't believe his quest to reach that this is a this isn't really a case about allegations of incitement and if you look closely at the allegations they don't get specific enough to and four and he said i had nothing to do with that what i did was i questioned a bunch of people a put it on the shelf at my studio and i left it there i didn't think there was enough for anything but after but mr jack is it is very active in anti superstition and believes that this that this movement of the falun gong is filled with superstition and so he was opposed to it and felt that it was it was  causing a social unrest but he left it at that he put it on a shelf the chinese government took that made it into that that a documentary that appeared now that documentaries available on you tube i believe we sent it into the court copies of it and there's a translation that goes along with it and it's nothing other than what you see on any station at any time in u s television basically i don't even think it's the families who are because it's probably the things that are in there are either true or their opinion so so this is what we're talking about the words those magic words appear in the last paragraph or so of that long presentation and it's just going back and forth about hey mr leader is a charlatan that's what this is about he's a charlatan and you people in falun gong are being taken for a ride and that in the united states of course to be free speech how that becomes an advocacy for torture i you know when to use that word to use that word i have to torture this morning that this is my job it's far fetched and i understand that what that the falun gong are aggrieved and and i can't take a position  on that agreement all i can tell you is that mr jack had nothing to do with actual torture did not know the tortures there's no allegation he knew the tortures and and there's no connection there there's no aiding and abetting already so just because i only have a few minutes so what i did was i went through the five factors of have a stand looking at the underlying underlying tort torture the nature and kind of view systems looking at the organizations he created looking at his calling for torture so on and so forth and so to it conspiracy that in other words i based the argument that one kind of burning agreement to further an agreement to subject falun gong is there an allegation that the defendant knew the tortures yes he yes it's all over the complaint i mean he it's in the complaint because he he created this china and he called association in order to subject to go jan which means violent suppression and on the web site and in his articles he calls for john was john what is the chinese word for forced conversion to torture the allegations regarding his connection to the torturers is that that the activities were mutually reinforcing that you have the sword in the pan and that the way that operates in china is that you need the pen before you have the so you have to have the propaganda that turns china against the target group and also orders and instructions orders and instructs that they be subjected to the torture and then the security engages in the torture so the mutually reinforcing there's definitely indirect contact i don't know the gerbils ever met headliner or or any of the us but there's definitely allegations of indirect contact in th conferences they gave out the torture manuals telling telling the security how to torture based on their personalities there's type a type b type c and depending on which type you encounter this is how you torture them in those torture manuals according to the complaint were also provided by ca to camps across china and i just want to conclude by saying that the defendants counter