to avoid prosecution, this Court does not find that based on these facts, substantial evidence supports the Appeals Council’s determination that claimant was fleeing with the intent to avoid prosecution. Additionally, the state of Montana’s failure and unwillingness to extradite claimant though he has volunteered to return lends support to this Court’s determination that the Appeals Council’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, particularly when it was police in the state of Montana who initially suggested that claimant depart. In analogous situations involving extradition of an individual from a foreign country to face charges, the government must demonstrate due diligence in seeking that individual’s return. See United States v. Diacolios, 837 F.2d 79, 84 (2nd Cir.1988)(<HOLDING>). While this Court does not suggest that in
holding inter alia that a united states court retains jurisdiction over persons arrested on a foreign ship beyond the us navigable waters when said arrest violates a treaty to which the united states and the foreign country are parties holding that the contracts clause article i section 10 clause 1 to the united states constitution does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that while the speedy trial clause does not prevent the government from adhering to its general policy not to seek extradition outside the extradition treaty with a foreign country if the defendant did express a willingness to surrender himself to appropriate authorities the government would be under an obligation to provide transportation to the united states at the governments expense if defendants financial circumstances so warrant holding that the district court did not err in instructing the jury not to draw any adverse inferences from the governments failure to call a witness because the witness did not have a relationship with the government such that one would expect him to give testimony in favor of the government holding where 1 the government provided the defendant with all the necessary drugmaking materials 2 the government provided instructions on how to make the drugs and 3 the defendant sought out the materials and help from the undercover government agents the case set the outer limits to which the government may go in the quest to ferret out and prosecute crimes but the governments conduct did not rise to the level of a due process violation