as court appointed amicus counsel in support of rehearsal the defendant's voluntary choices have jurisdictional consequences here revolution shows to exploit illinois market fair consequence is that it can be held accountable in an illinois court and revolution's choices are clear from the record there's no question of affidavits here there's no question about disputed facts revolution chose to list illinois as a destination on its shipping menu revolution chose to accept orders from illinois consumers it shows to fill those orders it follow those orders up with a message thanking the illinois consumers for their business and it made this choice seven hundred and sixty seven times during the brief window when they were selling the product before mr curry defended himself and got them to stop there was no intermediary between the defendants and the state of illinois no middleman no distributor no one making an independent judgment every choice was made by the defendants and by the defendants alone this is not a stream of commerce case this is not a suit arises from some torture sect to vittie in connection with the sale and the sears roebuck example is fantastic because sears was shipping a wide variety of products some of which could cause serious harm i think you could buy a house from sears at the time t catalog and if sears had shipped the house to illinois in that house it collapsed and injured somebody they could not have then come to this court and said well we ship house us to every state and since we ship to every state we're immune from jurisdiction all of them except our home state and in fact one of the oddities of the defendant's position here is that they're arguing that as the samples footprint of a brute of a merchant expands its jurisdictional footprint contracts so the defense theory is that if a business  california sells a certain number of units exclusively to illinois then it's subject to jurisdiction but if it sells the same amount of units to illinois and in addition sells in other states then by virtue of those additional sales illinois jurisdiction is divest it and that argument has no support in any case that i could find and this court has expressly rejected that exact argument in hemming and henny cigarettes trigger it came to court and said well we saw cigarettes in every state we don't tailor our advertising in illinois and as a result we should not be subject to jurisdiction in illinois and the court just flatly rejected that argument it said you can't have a defendant a merchant cannot have its cake and eat it too it can't have a nationwide business model and then say that there is no nationwide exposure that everybody who wants to sue it has to travel to its home state and the supreme court in the burger king case expressly set that one of the purposes that due process doctrine to serving is not just to ensure that defendants are insulated from jurisdiction when contacts are for to notice but to ensure that when contacts are not for two of us that the plaintiff has an addict and convenient local remedy and one of the implications of the defendant's argument here is that even the state of illinois would not be able to sue the defendant you know in a way so under the state statutes that the plaintiff invoked your tourney general also has and force an authority and every single argument that the defendants make would apply equally to the attorney general in forcing those statutes as they do to mr curry who's acting as a private attorney general in addition every single argument the defendants are making would apply if instead of a trademark infringement suit if the seven hundred and sixty seven products that the defendant had shipped into the form had been tainted during the manufacturing process so that each of the consumers died all of the defendants arguments which suggest that in a wrongful death action there is no personal caused harm to new hampshire no matter what the percentage of its distribution buys yes and that was an argument that the defendant made in the keating case they said we're we have a national scope we're not targeting new hampshire specifically and the court held not only could new hampshire exercise specific jurisdiction educate all of the claims nationwide but i'm not going that far in this case so the ruling we have two theories of jurisdiction in this case one involving direct sales and one involving called or the direct sales are given is very clean there is no fact questions there's no disputed legal questions there's no need to look at affidavits if there's no questions additional questions on that theory i can turn to the calder argument so there's three points to make under a call  nd the complaint in this case and the supporting exhibits and additional evidence that the plaintiff submitted is more than sufficient to state a claim under color he said everything he needed to say to raise  which leads to the rd point the only real question here is whether the defendant's affidavits were sufficient overcome all of the allegations in the complaint and all of the evidence that the plaintiff it submitted and we would say that they were not for two reasons the standard of review is extremely deferential when there's been no evidentiary hearing the court draws all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party except all the allegations in the complaint as true and the plaintiff need only make a prim facia showing of jurisdiction how did the defendants attempt to overcome that they have boilerplate affidavits which in a very conclusory fashion simply assert the opposite of what the complaint alleges so the genesis of the complaining is the defendant knew about curry's ownership of the trademarks and intentionally sought to trade on his good will and the affidavits i think can be fairly summarized as saying no we didn't well that's an issue for trial that's why we have a trier of fact that's why we have that's why we have summary judgment potentially down the road it's not an issue that the district court can resolve in the st instance when it's supposed to be drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party particularly a pro se nonmoving party  as we had in this case so the affidavits don't overcome the well pleaded complaint of a caller klim and so that would be an independent basis for reversing the district court if there's no questions on that i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time  because the there was no question that the the action of selling cigarettes was connected to the unlawful conduct whereas here our position is that the  there is no connection between the sale of red series to the infringing actions and if you look at the allegations of the complaint you will see that they are lacking any connection to illinois while there are general allegations alleging that consumers in general were confused and that there were misrepresentations made there's no connection to those misrepresentations and those consumers in illinois in  only have evidence of sales for a short couple of so while certainly there were sales and we knowledge that there were sales there there needed to be a connection to the unlawful conduct and in addition to that there had to have been something more beyond just the sales some type of purposeful of ailment targeting of the jurisdiction through advertising and a friend shrank that are you arguing that doesn't arise out of i thought you were arguing there weren't sufficient minimum contacts that is one of our arguments we're arguing both that there are insufficient minimum context but also that the connection to this jurisdiction is insufficient if it infringed why is it not as in a rise from sales in illinois because the allegations of the complaint focus on confusion among consumers and misrepresentations that were made which were outright denied in the affidavits which is a mr pointed out that under your position the illinois attorney general would also not be able to enforce the statutes against your client do you agree i think it depends on the particular situation in the particular claims for example in hemi there were violations of state laws relating to the sale of cigarettes in illinois certainly as revolution was selling regulated products in illinois know how you would respond to them today since well couple of points on that issue judge st of all we don't believe that the affidavits are conclusory they do state specific facts as to the lack of connection in addition mr curry although pro se he does seem to be a sophisticated enough party to have found relevant case law to support his position in the district court proceedings with that said hagee question the veracity of the affidavits or believe that they lack credibility he could have asked for an opportunity to conduct discovery on those affidavits or he could have submitted his own affidavit he did neither and we believe that any request now or any argument that the f d a was lack credibility or he needs discovery on that issue is waived he did not raise it in the lower court so we have sales with respect to revolution but beyond those sales there is no targeted marketing there or there aren't any other direct communications or any other connection with alan seven hundred and sixty seven sales this is a significant number of well i again i think it's tied to the cause of action and the claim so it's not just the fact that there are sales there has to be something beyond that including targeting a forum but in addition to that that the sales and distinct allegations connecting them to him and for that reason even if the court finds that there is jurisdiction over revolution as the seller of the alleged infringing you three quick points st on the question as to whether hemi is distinguishable because cigarettes are regulated product and the product issue here is not illinois regulates branding every time one sends a product into illinois with a deceptive label that is a violation of the law and a lot can be enforced privately it can be enforced publicly so each of the seven hundred and sixty seven dollars cells is an independent violation federal law looks at likelihood of confusion not actual confusion for every consumer so again each one of the seven hundred and sixty seven dollars infringing bottles was a tort and each of those sales is therefore related to the plaintiff's claim nd counsel suggested that hemy was a sophisticated business and revolution is not noted the brief revolution twenty four million dollars a year in the sales it's set up as a cook islands trust this is a sophisticated entity at least as much as he wants and last with respect to the other three defendants this is a who decides question it was disputed in the district court whether the allegations against the two individual defendants and management were sufficient to assert your stiction the complaint alleges that everybody was involved in the illegal decisions there is precedent suggesting that the president and c can be subject to jurisdiction based on what the l l c does the district court declined to address those questions because it dismissed against revolution so now the question for this court is if rev if the case is going back because the district court erred in dismissing claims against revolution should the district court in the st instance decide whether there is jurisdiction over the other three defendants and as noted in the reply brief both of the doctrines that the defendants rely on fail piercing and the fiduciary shield doctrine are discretionary their fact dependent and they're the exactly the kinds of questions on which the district court should rule st and to the extent there is any dispute about illinois law a federal appellate court under erie should not in the st instance resolve contested questions of state law when there hasn't