extradited under a treaty that doesn't allow for the actually dition of u s citizens for a crime that we wouldn't consider a crime here in the united states was that the treaty doesn't allow man up provide for because the different from a lot of different pro authorized but also don't prohibit why does that mean that extradition can't be accomplished by relying upon something different in this case statute because the stat i mean this is getting in the one ninety six argument the statute purports to remedy what's going on in the in the treaty without going through makes a point of saying there's nothing else that authorizes yes congress is going to address this congress addressed it why isn't that the end of the issue i'm not sure that they do say congress going to dress or they say one possibility is that is that there are statutes but they also go on to use this language about you know whatever the whatever the power to vote congress to legislate in this area it's somewhat active vocal about whether congress even can legislate in this area and i do think there's an argument that it makes sense that you would deal with something like your that argument but that doesn't mean that the treaty prohibits which is the argument you're making the treaty doesn't allow i think you've got a good argument in the report supports that the tree doesn't authorize but i don't see anything in the treaty that speaks to the issue of whether congress has the power to enact a statute i don't i don't believe the treaty is saying whether congress has the power to enact at the treaty on its own terms doesn't allow for you can't you couldn't take the treaty and say ok here i'm going to go actually going all over us ok later there's nothing in the treaty that prohibits congress from doing something else in your objection to congressional there's a change here especially from the perspective of the american citizen being extradited you have that you have the treaty under the treaty he's not extraditable you have congress step in purport to remedy these thirty four valentine that it's already a matter that the treaty i believe is speaking on it saying you know we were don't you know we don't we don't give the power to actually write our own citizens so congress is stepping in doing something different from the treaty there's a conflict you past thirty one ninety six now he's actually radical suppose congress is there was no statute i mean there was no treaty in the congress passed the statue like they're doing ninety six could the secretary of state allow somebody to be foreign government that's a different question that i think is not well dressed in the briefs but it i i i'm not so sure they could it it seems to me that extradition is more of a treaty a matter than our congressional legislation matter i don't see anything for instance in article one section eight saying you know congress shall have the power to determine extradition if the president hasn't spoken to the tradition addressed extradition no it's because of its peaks of the treaty for going to the president and various legislative powers going to congress i don't see anything in there identifying that as one of congress's powers and i should dition seems more like a treaty matter this is a reciprocity relations between countries the whole idea of treaties is that you have this you know stable ongoing relationships that that survive individual political regimes within the country i think it's really not easy in the precedent on any subject where the supreme court or any other court has said this is a subject that can be addressed only by treaty congress doesn't have the power to enact a statute none that i'm aware of your own mouth so tell you that this argument comes up in a context i'm likely more familiar with the nobody else in the room because hawaii was annexed became a territory the united states by way of joint resolution of congress not by way of treaty between the kingdom of and then the republic of hawaii and the united states and there are people who continue to argue in hawaii that that wasn't a lawful way to annex new territory and yet i'm still sitting here as a united states citizen and a judge of united states federal court so the argument is out there but i've never seen an instance where it's gotten traction and you're no trying to offer it up and there's a first time for lots of things but it can you point is to anything in that that would give the argument some traction that in fact that limits the power of congress because a given subject can be addressed only by treaty i mean i would just point to a good article one section eight that lays out a new married powers for congress those are as i understand what congress is limited to doing i don't see anything in there that points to extradition  if it's ok or honest i'd like to pivot to the question of criminality and that i think is the narrowest ground and one that doesn't force this court to delve in the constitutionality or conflicts between treaties and statutes acts that we don't actually consider serious crimes here and i have four points that i want to make about it the first of these is that the the lower courts here use the wrong framework to analyze do criminality so i don't actually think there's a useful decision from below for this court to work from to criminality doesn't require and i think this is an all that both well perhaps you know doesn't require difficult elements scope of liability name of the offen the really important thing is that under these laws the laws of both nations the the underlying conduct makes out an offense so and again i don't think the parties are disputing this every every case i've looked at no they don't have to be identical but where there's a problem is if there is a difference in the elements that's relevant to the case and that's that's actually what happens here here the check statute doesn't contain this wrongfulness element for extortion or threats that that the us that the us statute does so they just are court looked at this and said well you know it's mostly the same we're missing wrongful but that's you know that that's not a big deal well because they don't have to be identical we'll just move on what they don't do is ever look at the the actual underlying conduct and if you do look at the underlying conduct you've start to run into a real problem here because he's got his conduct is not wrongful under the meaning of the law that's my my second point wrongful is not i got decision it's not just looking at the conduct and saying hey that looks that looks bad to me it's specific that it's something that's unlawful either as to the means or as to the ends  and that that difference is important here because in the us and we do discuss and briefing we allow hard bargaining that they may not allow in other countries you know we allow yelp to remove positive reviews to force people to buy ad revenue we allow a protester to go to a developer and say hey i'll stop protesting if you give me twenty thousand dollars from my semi pro football team we allow these things that i think would be barred under the checks that y so in order for the means to be unlawful the alleged victim must have a right to be free from the threat and harm and in order for the ends to be unlawful the defendant must have sought payment for something that they had no right to be paid for and again because he's neither instance instance is he asking for something that he has no legal right to ask for or z threatening to do something that the party has a legal right to be free from doing so for instance with th commission was wrong then instead of using an option clause in that contract the parties might write a new contract in one nine hundred ninety nine it appears from the decision the sessions a little hard to read but it appears to me from the decision that under the option clause he would have been entitled to a commission he goes to that he goes to tell access and says hey you guys want to round me i you know i i i do believe that i deserve a commission in this circumstance he goes back to them several times and threatens to tell your otel not to complete the deal so if you look at this he's asking for money that he believes that he has a right to so it's not wrongful as to the ends and it's not wrongful as to the means because the thing being threatened is just that he's going to go to another person or another entity that telexes does business with and say hey i wasn't treated fairly and telexes has absolutely no right to keep you know if it's if it's treating someone does business unfairly it has no right to kind of keep that secret so in neither instance is he doing something that that is so with neither regard to the ends of the means is he doing something is not permitted to do the same goes for the euro tell situation that one your tel issues these scratch coupons that are supposed to be scratched off but instead someone can look at them and see that there's see what the underlying code is but by looking under a light  this gets publicized apparently without any help from this to know tech it it's a competitor tells you your tell about it first isn't published on the internet he finds out them about the problem investigates the problem  privately taking advantage of it and then tries to get paid for his investigation and for his proposed solution i'm going to go to you because you're telling me says i figured out some people are misusing this i spent money to do that i can tell you their names i have an idea for how to deal with them but you need to pay me for that and your tell had no right to be get that information without paying him so he's not threatening and no right i mean there's some dispute as to whether he actually made any threat to take this to the press but certainly no right to have their message not broadcast in the press and the thing that he's asking for is not illusory he's not just asking for you know money for no tempted extortion czech republic stores i think just really trying to get it sort of these cap he's threatening tactics were a little bit more demanding guess they have to take the the subsequent step of actually going through the elements and saying this actually makes out the elements of the offense in the us it's not enough to just say hey the point of the same harm so you know we're not going to worry about what he actually did the court my name is john legend and i represent the united states of america as a parent start with the constitutional analysis but given the discussion as to the facts perhaps it might be helpful if i clear up some of these facts and show w mr no text conduct was wrong when and why there is evidence in the record for the magistrate judge of the district court to write what they did we're not dealing with somebody who says on happy with a business deal we're dealing with somebody who did not from tel access now tell access told mr no tact that we're not going to pay you you didn't do anything and rather than say i disagree on a bring a lawsuit against them to go through these means what he says despite i'm go interfere with your business relationship with your the other person the contract you're a tell and what he did was work with a coconspirator in the press department of your tell to hold up payments he received a contract that he was not entitled to have the finally were able to get in the door that it came to light that what mr know tech was doing but even on that day when that meeting was going to take place what mr no tech do he sent text messages to the c e o of your  on my own and i know who's doing it and if you pay me money i'm going to go ahead now make sure it goes away in this country we have that happened many times this country you know buildings burned down in this neighborhood you have a store if you pay me money i'll make sure your building doesn't burn noted but true between the media source that revealed this and mr know tech and when that didn't work he went to the police and presented partial information of them and watched a police investigation in this to continue to put pressure on this this is not the conduct of somebody who is acting and doing hard bargaining this is somebody who is trying to extort something that he's not entitled to he wasn't entitled to a commission from tel access and he wasn't entitled to any money from your government some excerpts a record which contains both the opinion of the proc court and the high court lays out all the evidence that goes to that wrongful purpose so the magistrate judge said look i've got a conviction from a foreign country i'm required to rely on that conviction the same way that a foreign country is required to rely on our conviction but even without that we still get to the point where there's evidence in the record and  numerous you have to conclude that the conduct is identified in the record what happened in the czech republic is also a crime in the united states and he did that he determined looking at this court's decision and russell and looking at the analysis he had to do and said there is evidence in the record and i can take the evidence of the conviction alone and that's sufficient in order to go this but he what he but he could have but the and he pointed to the record to say the evidence is there to fall within the the the under the under the under in both countries and both the czech republic and in the united states in addition of that if you just look at the your point your point your argument is that if you just look at the basis for the check position that it is our free will to do that analysis we would conclude that what happened here what happened in the czech republic absolutely are also actually this court would look at the noble and look at those facts absolutely would come to the same conclusion because not only do you have a wrongful purpose in this wrongful conduct and here he's seeking things that he is not entitled to which it goes to the which basically undermines what they're arguing because they're arguing that the premise of the entire argument of why the hobbs act doesn't apply is that he was entitled these things he was entitled to a commission he was entitled to money for an investigation and wasn't requested once you take that out of that it's no longer hard bark and then this is somebody who's trying to extort somebody else so  unless the court has any further questions on that i can move the constitutionality issue from your honor pointed out a little while ago that there really was no conflict between the treaty and thirty one ninety six and the treaty doesn't prohibit the extradition united states citizens in one thousand nine hundred five treaty specifically says that the that or that the article one says the both government extradite individuals found in their territories and there's a limitation to that which is article eight which is the subject of this appeal that neither party shall be bound to deliver of its own citizens that's a big difference from saying neither party shall deliver up its own citizens and when the supreme court looked at this in valentine they did look at this a similar language is a bar what they said is that there's no explicit grant of authority and they gave they gave the government two options either legislate it or go ahead and do it by trees they didn't say you have to do one or the other  there was no well nothing to suggest you couldn't do both and the eighty two years since valentine the government has done both with legislate we've gone ahead and renegotiated treaties we've entered into new treaties where we specifically give that authorize that grant of authorization explicit authorization for the secretary of state to return a united states citizen and in one nine hundred ninety congress said well we're going to go ahead and put this piece of legislation at thirty one ninety six in order to deal with the issue of valentine and follow the second option given to us by the supreme court so the specific grant of authority is there so as long as it's not barred barred by the treaty it's up to the secretary of state to make a decision on whether or not to return a united states citizen to another country so the  and you're giving an authorization the only case in the country that disagrees with that approach is the first case that came after thirty one ninety six and that was the case but that's a unique case because what happened is  portugal who has similar language to what the czech republic has try to extradite an individual before thirty one ninety six when in a place in the magistrate judge said no based on the language of the statute in valentine we're not going to return you  don't have the authorization to send this person back congress passed thirty one ninety six and the portuguese came back and tried it again and the court came back and said no it's retroactive we're not going to allow you to do it but what the court didn't do the say the thirty one ninety six was unconstitutional and the courts that have followed in line with that including the horrible case which dealt with the same treaty came back and said no this is fine you've got that grant of authority so you can go ahead and continue to continue to send people overseas in addition of that there are we will take a look at the practice of the parties in order to give us some guide of what's happening and what's happening is that we have we continue to return people to foreign nations and we cited a case in there of the the dog run case which talks of which is where we returned the check us citizen to the czech republic to stand trial back in two thousand and fifteen and so you've got you don't have the constitutional issue and be in it because you don't have a conflict between the statute and the treaty the last time bill doesn't come into play and if the court wasn't happy to go into that and talk about the permutations of that but it doesn't seem that you ever get to that point at the end of the day what you have you got an individual that engaged in conduct that would be criminal both in the united states and in the czech republic it doesn't matter that the laws are not identical this court is actually addressed that service time and there is no constitutional bar there is no creep are there's no statutory bar to doing to returning him and there is ample evidence in the record to support that return ok thank you very much being held in the payment being delayed that happens in august all the discussions between telexes and mr novak are back in april january through april he never returns and says hey i'm holding out these contracts pay me money there's no threat actually attached to that behavior and and he did broker the original deal and so that is the basis for his at least believing that he was intitled to two payment under the contract going on to the other situation the government really doesn't point anything illegal they just say his his services weren't wanted the case was full of this court saying it's not enough that they're on wanted they need to be actually either wrongful  fictitious it's just that you're offering something that somebody does and one and you can look at the united brotherhood of carpenters case for that and then i would just say lastly the issue about whether the district court and the magistrate judge looked at this  sections in the excerpts of record fifty five fifty six and sixty two sixty three there's really no there is no march through the elements to say that this meets the element in fact the district court in a footnote says it doesn't have to do that thank you thank you very much  the matter is submitted at this time and will turn for our last case it's on the calendar which is stephen schneider versus ford motor company