either way it was the threats were were uttered in the in the context of a dispute so i think whether the assault was in response to the stress or whether stem from the way just food diction exists because one of these individuals happens to have his occupation that of being seen i would say that makes it even more maritime and in nature even without the status in the status if there's any potential hesitation that regard sam perhaps there was a lingering employment relationship in which case i was asking for enron relief to proceed and ram that also was not addressed i'm asking i asked the trial judge just to paraphrase what mr murray of said what could be more maritime than to seamen fighting on a ship in in the waters i'm sure it happens every day the question of course would be whether it relates to anything traditionally maritime and whether the uniformity of maritime law is implicated because to seamen people who have to go to sea also happen to have a battle on a boat one night obviously if they're fighting over a woman that's not traditional maritime activity obviously if they're fighting over poker debts that's not traditional maritime activity there are many reasons to seame beyond what legitimately flows from the causation analysis always dispute and what is that we become something else that's just does not rise to the level of federal jurisdiction and i think the point becomes clear when you ask this question you know that's true but i think interesting lee the case law wouldn't make any difference if they were both employed as seamen at the time on a boat and they were over navigable waters there was wood under their feet in the sense that it was a dock stead of the deck but as a and washington state and oregon and the case law has always said assuming can pursue either one or both they just do not implicate the uniformity of federal maritime law what's that got to do with those threatening phone messages what has that got to do with showing up at the dock and threatening mr less man in front of a five year old grandson with physical injury that's just criminal behavior leslie had retaliated found mr rivers property and thrown it in the water off the deck of his boat would we be saying that that is maritime jurisdiction as well because it all somehow evolves from what mr which was not obviously part of the motivation for the fight was settled well i think it's just it's it obviously is important if there were still a wage claim here and that would want to compensation general maritime negligence right solved and he wanted money in the form of wages right away just part of the settled once the wages part of settled then it was our position there was no longer a basis that was the federal jurisdiction while the wage claim was still open maritime jurisdiction it was federal jurisdiction federal subject matter was a federal subject matter but not maritime in your view in my view it was extinguished in your view because of the settlement because the only allegation of federal excuse me only allocation of federal jurisdiction was the invocation of a federal statute concerning seamen's wages we would all over the assaulting your understanding of what happened his death of just record here refused to exercise a pension jurisdiction you know the district court by the time the motion was filed you no longer had a wage claim before it made a longer much like to ask you the same question what's the significance of the wage claim having been settled on this issue i don't think there is any significance i think both claims are maritime in nature both the wages and the assault