Hi Tutor, please read the facts in the attachment and answer the following questions. After answering these questions please right a thesis paragraph also at the end. Instructions has also given with these questions. I have attached a sample thesis paragraph also for your convenience. THANKS

LRW-LLM Homework Assignment: Researching and Analyzing Statutory Law The Man with the Alligator Bags Your client, Mr. Lionel Boudreaux, has an alligator farm, and sells tanned alligator hides. Wanting to expand his business to include the sale of finished articles, he contacted a French firm that turns the hides into purses. The French firm agreed to make purses out of Boudreaux's alligator hides, but also wanted him to buy some of their ready-made Nile crocodile bags. Boudreaux agreed, and imported some of the crocodile purses along with his alligator bags to sell in his new leather-goods shop, relying on the representations of the French firm that the only crocodile used was taken legally under Egyptian law. He has now learned that Egyptian law prohibits the exportation of the particular species of crocodile used to make the bags, and is concerned that he may have violated United States law by importing the crocodile bags. Your research in secondary sources has suggested the following issues to research in federal statutes. Find the statutes and answer the questions below. Briefly state what the statute provides. 1. Is Boudreaux violating United States law by importing wildlife from a country that Prohibits their export? Using the United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.) on Westlaw Edge or the United States Code Service (U.S.C.S.) on Lexis Advance, locate 16 U.S.C. $3372(a)(2)(A) to answer the question. ..... . . ........." 2. What civil and criminal penalties might he face? Using U.S.C.A. or U.S.C.S., locate 16 U.S.C. $ 3373 to answer the question. Read all subdivisions of this statute. . . ..... . . .. .......... .......... 3. What do you think "forfeiture" mean? Are the crocodile bags subject to forfeiture? Using U.S.C.A. or U.S.C.S., locate 16 U.S.C. $ 3374(a)(1) to answer the question. 4. What is the "innocent owner" defense? Does this defense apply here (so that your client can send the bags back to France and ask the French company to refund him)? Read the excerpted case attached to this assignment (United States v. One Handbag of Crocodilus Species, 856 F. Supp. 128 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)) to answer this question. . . .. ............. . . . ..............." 5. Imagine you now must write a legal memorandum analyzing the law of forfeiture as it relates to the facts noted above. Write a thesis paragraph stating the issue, rule(s), and conclusion with a brief explanation. ...................... . ......." . . . ......" . . .................... ............................. .. ..................".\fSAMPLE PETERSON ANSWER: IREAC (With Thesis paragraph) The issue is whether David Peterson, Sr. is liable in negligence to Phil Aarons for storing tools in a basement where Peterson's eleven-year-old son was playing with Aarons and where Aarons was injured by the son's attempt to use the tools. A person has a duty to protect others against unreasonable risks. Smith v. Allen, [citation would go here]. One who breaches this duty is negligent and liable for injuries resulting from that negligence. Id. Peterson did not create an unreasonable risk by storing tools in the basement and should, therefore, not be liable for negligence. The defendant is not liable where the risk cannot be "reasonably anticipated" or is "so unlikely to occur that the risk, although recognizable, would commonly be disregarded) Smith v. Allen. In Smith, the court found defendant not liable in negligence to his son's playmate where the son injured the playmate while playing with a golf club the father left lying on the ground in his backyard. Id. In so holding, the court stated that a golf club is not so "obviously and intrinsically dangerous" as to create an unreasonable risk. Unlike a knife, for example, it is not commonly used as a weapon. Id, Similarly to the defendant in Smith v. Allen, Peterson is not liable. Like the golf club in Smith, the tools used by David, Jr. are not so "obviously and intrinsically dangerous" as to create an unreasonable risk. While a hammer and nails can cause injury, the hammer and nails used by David, Jr. are ordinary household objects that are not commonly used as weapons!/ Even if the tools are arguably more dangerous than a golf club, Mr. Peterson was more cautious, and created less risk of harm, than the father in Smith. Mr. Peterson stored them in a LRW-LLM Prof. Kenneth Raphael FALL 2022 toolbox in the basement. He did not leave the tools out in the open in a yard, as the father in Smith left his golf club. Because Mr. Peterson did not create an unreasonable risk by storing the tools in the basement, a court is not likely to find him liable in negligence to his son's playmate