by my client based upon the fact that he was arrested in thailand based upon false information by an f b i each the agent had either probable cause and in fact manufactured evidence to have and that we have to look at the united states supreme court case and ziggler versions of basi in which the court said for various factory to determine whether or not is were you context and in a bosie the court basically set out four or five different considerations to determine whether or not this was taken out of the context and i'm going to just reciting very briefly the rank of the officer the constitutional right involved the type of the an action the extent of judicial guidance and the legal mandate under which the officer was operating in this particular case there was nothing to indicate that the rank of the officer was anything other than a normal f b i agent  country you know this is the section under which mr devine was operating in other words in the normal case what happens in a foreign country the american courts don't have any jurisdiction this is a specific statute in which congress gave the united states courts jurisdiction to prosecute people who commit sex crimes in foreign countries of even be extradited and tried in the united states court so this is a very specific statute and as the court asked me this is a man he absolutely the thai authorities did not do at the time of the arrest any of an independent investigation they got the information from mr divine and based upon what he told him in his investigation they just were carrying out his orders because mr divine had no legal authority in thailand to add to it impose the arrest himself he had to use the thai authorities let me give it a analogy let's assume that the f b i we go to a state authorities state police in the state of california and say listen i want you to arrest somebody in the state of california based upon the information that i am providing and then the state authorities take the word of the f b i agent and arrest somebody in the state of california mr devine convincing well i'm not the one that arrested the individual in the state of california even though the state of california officers and everything we did was based on what the federal f b i agent told me to do we did not do anything independently of time one cannot say the divine is not responsible for the rest of the defendant and under normal tort law he would be one hundred percent responsible for what the state authorities do now the fact that this happened thailand shouldn't change the issue specifically because we have a nothing to do with his case i am saying that the thai authorities were doing everything they did specifically based on what divine instructed them and gave them the information so my argument is not there ty law was in any way violated and i'm not government and the supreme court justices they said that if hernandez had been an american citizen it would been a different result the reason they came to the decision was their nana's one of the main reasons that there was possibly a conflict between  americans and mexican policy was because the person shot in hernandez was a mexican citizen and nationally mexico would have an interest in protecting their own citizens in our case we have an american citizen so thailand has no interest whatsoever in what happens authorities were saying is ok because this whole case focuses one hundred percent of what divine did and has nothing to do with the thai authorities so we're not saying there should be a conflict between policy between america and thailand we're not we're not were misled by an american i mean you want that extension but there's no last court well i don't have a specific case he's in which an f b i agent in a foreign country as foreign agents to arrest somebody yes there is no specific i'm on point but clearly under tort concepts mr if mr devine goes to a local police agency and i think you have to separate st of all is is  context case and then you have to separate that from the idea of its territorially in another country so it was just look at defense itself if even begins the agents who are arrested mr bivins had was not physically present at at the time mr bivins was arrested even though everything the arresting agents did was based on where the f b i told him to do i don't see how that possibly makes any distinction you the distinction your honor is making i think you your putting the two things together and saying well this is a new bivins case because they have the f b i agent isn't the one that actually made the arrest and then you're jumping to the point well that happened in a foreign country so that makes it even worse i think we have to d factors and none of them would indicate that this is a new context case at all the only bit that is makes his case unusual is that happened if this fact would have happened in the united states the f b i can hide behind the fact that  told somebody else to do it in the active service so the only issue is the fact in my opinion and it happened in thailand and the thing that i think saved the case for mr hobbs is the fact that he was basically operator now under a statu and acted by congress and this was twenty five years after vivants was decided and congress had specifically given united states jurisdiction to prosecute these exact cases in the united states and clearly if this case of a prostitute in the united states based on false evidence presented by mr devine why when it's the client didn't have a bit of ins klang what difference would it have made the fact that it happened in thailand or the united states if this case would have been brought to the united states and he liability depending upon what foreign agents allegedly do wrong they have little control over that and for most foreign policy perspective if you were putting the interaction between american law enforcement inform law enforcement under a new regime in which the american agents or some of it in flight something goes wrong in the operation it would have just severe systemic consequences also impossible to get away from i think the fact that this was part of the water process operations in countries that are governed by a pretty complex series of form was illegal let me just end with his thought if we accept the government's theory in this case then we're saying an f b i agent can target anybody they want anywhere in the world give false information have that person arrested under twenty four twenty three for sexual conduct overseas and there's nothing no remedy that person has and the f b i is free to create false information and prosecute anybody they want for no reason at all it can't possibly be the law and that's bad foreign policy all we're saying is we're not in conflict with all we're saying is let's concentrate on devean divines activity and if we can prove that he intentionally created false information then the