to introduce themselves when they step up each side has fifteen minutes so we can begin with the  are not are not tied to the common law and therefore limited to the whatever the legislature decided to put into those statutes i'm sorry i sometime i point my i'm saying that the worst act of the stand alone in terms of the description you're giving is if we could only look at the divorce act because there are other acts that are similarly created by the legislature without any connection to the common law and therefore whatever you're saying about the about the divorce hack would necessarily seem to apply to these other attacks and then you're really just creating this whole new division between those that are those uh remedies that are tied to the common law and those remedies that are simply case the case is a very clear that the divorce court and not at above that power which is that which is given to it by the legislature when the let me ask you this question do you divorce judges have discretion have the authority to do what a test it depends on what application they are making to what specific area of the law so let's get to the application what application are we dealing with here that you believe solely to divorce that's that's the point of this entire argument there is no application of the for the convenience that's permitted or that's authorizes the court to can be sought after requesting but when the statute is size it is not a matter of strict construction to say that they the the that which is not provided in the statu right and since the form not convenience provision is a supreme court rule and the supreme court rules are only mentioned in article one of the  the general provisions section therefore the right of the supreme court to make rules with regard to this is not is not included if they do right because because exception of one thing that therefore sat sat and i'm going to quote the ak application of civil rights law the provisions of the civil practi law shall apply to all proceedings under this act meaning that the force that ask proceedings under this act so in other words one can this the plain meaning yes if they don't apply to the divorce sack and they don't then the civil practice act is not   refers to most motions relief requested and the it's not the overall any of the divorce it is whatever falls within it and therefore and that part let me ask you this question what's the point why would the legislature do what you are arguing for precisely for those for that reason that that particular doctor violates a little against civil rights guaranteed to a remedy and due process of law that's why i something being unconstitutional by virtue of the rights inherent in human beings and something being unconstitutional because the statute says something that you know is those has been challenged as one up to the extent but here we've got a very very narrow construction of the power of this court and it simply sa k and i think i think what's very clear is the fact that we have only two provisions governing venue in the in the divorce that what is the provision that the state of illinois and transfers in the county or state of low illinois it doesn't say dismissed here this case was dismissed based war or infringed upon by saying you know what i think it's better if you litigate this in france in your home country where you got married where your wife is and where a proceeding where something was initiated before you this case were sent back to france in your pleadings it's not a matter of i don't think that's how we know it's not a matter of being able to divorce it's far beyond that it's a matter of the court's power number one which we have to absolutely this morning the argument that's been presented is an unnecessary attempt to complicate something that is so very simple this court is well aware of the doctrine of form not convene as to just as palmer you referred to other cases this court has decided this very district the only supreme court has ruled on this as well as the united states supreme court this is a doctrine that arises from common law and i submit to the court that it also rises from common sense and the u s supreme court crystallizes common law doctrine in the case of gulf oil versus gilbert and in that this isn't the court said that the principle of foreign on non convenience is simply that a court may resist imposition that's important the court has the ability to resist imposition upon its jurisdiction when jurisdiction is authorized by the fairness and sensible there's the common sense part that i talk about and sensible and effective judicial ministration which allows a trial court to decline jurisdiction in the exceptional case where trial  with proper jurisdiction a venue would better serve the ends of justice that's the first american bank case versus green that we are about in our briefs now it's quite clear that the only supreme court and supreme court will win eighty seven has given it given its blessing to this doctrine counsel has told you this morning also in his brief that somehow the supreme court rules were not incorporated into the i b m d n a if that's the case i'm not sure how he court will govern request reproduction document has to have it has the illinois supreme court spoke of the conflict between their rules are rules and possibly statutes which eighty seven is in fact not inconsistent and we use it every day the reason why counsel i believe a spent so much time arguing against one eighty seven is because quite clearly if it and he relies on that heavily on a case called body and in that case this is a u s supreme court case certain individuals were denied access to up to file their divorce cases and they were all this was not for money being it's hastens important note that in the body case these people these individuals didn't have any money they had no access to any form whatsoever and so the court did not appreciate that you should be able to have access to a form in this case mr a car being asked to do today by my opposing counsel is under the guise of constitutional rights to grant him some sort of constitutional right which doesn't exist to choose between three continents where he owns real estate  owns real estate in france he owns it in brazilians at united states he wants the ability to choose the best law that suits him most favorably and to choose the form that is the most difficult and arduous for his spouse one where she doesn't speak the language where she doesn't know what you know the last and when when she's only been here six or eight times when he brought her here in arranged everything and paid for everything i submit to this court there is no constitutional right being deprived this individual he's proven to be a bit of a presidential chameleon he has another form and that's what judge kelly decided and interestingly enough the forum that he has is the one that he chose because before this case came what did he tell about my part that she lives in france that she's down south in france and there's an illegal and then he dismissed his case there when things weren't going so well for him we found the next day here it's clear it's over there absolutely are in fact in fact notions of comments he have been part of our of our fabric of our laws for work as long as we've been a country we we have to respect their laws as they respect ours and they put their divorce case on whole and that there's there is this constitutional claim individual constitutional claim any national interest that speak in terms of comedy why should the individual constitutional claim that is otherwise you know only between the lines when it doesn't it just doesn't and in fact in fact to claim that you have a constitutional right when when you have another forum that the court has already old is better suited it just makes all the sense in the world that's where it should be now up for you to find as counsel has asked you today to find there was there was an abuse of discretion you have to hold born and raised in france the citizens only of france educated in france my clients never lived any place else as i think here which has only been here before whenever he arranged everything and she came over here much during the argument about  i would say that he wants to start carving off supreme court rules if you'll excuse the pression the expression willy nilly and saying will these apply because they suit me and these don't apply because they don't it just ren attire argument worthless we all know that under rules to sixteen that you have requested my daughter requests to admit there are we use those in divorce cases as well tonight team discovery sanctions one thirty seven sanctions the supreme court rules apply to the extent that they're not inconsistent and there has there is nothing they can say one thing i do know yesterday is that there are plenty of one thirty seven proceedings in the domestic rel wrong they weren't this is a tool that the but the courts have that the judges have to exercise when they feel after they've heard the evidence and weigh the testimony in this case it was six days of people using interpreters both sides used interpreters in this case because kelly made a point of dragging it out saying that it was dragged out because of that this case belongs there have also want to point out a few more things before i  factually speaking that i think this court is it needs to just wrongly way and that is the fact that claude goes to france all the time anyway in fact he has he has no family that lives here nor does my point of course his mother lives in france his children live in france he's one of  his well he has a grandchild in france he goes to france every year to visit his mother he has lots of business interests in france he owns more property there than you can tell us about not to mention a house that he recently paid five hundred fifty thousand euro square with another woman  business with her with him bought this house and they were just which is he has that right to do but to claim that he somehow inconvenience to go to that one when the french court noted recently this is part of it and not recent but it's on the record as well but they went out to investigate matters there and found that he was he was there in the house when they showed up in france and he was there with this other woman and he had moved this close in so for him to come to this court it's disingenuous to say he doesn't have any other one he's there all the time he's so in france it's just just totally disingenuous to say that that he's thinking being a spy plenty of other and sixty five years old he doesn't speak any english uses a computer program to try to it's almost like a reverse computer program to try to understand the documents in this case and i want to wrap up with this last point it's important for her to prove her to defend herself in a case where they file for divorce and where they've asked for a moment colleges this is what they put in play this court knows probably difficulty that is entailed in getting a doctor in chicago to show up the daily center trying to get a doctor from france to come over here and testify with an interpreter is absolutely out the question and the expenses would be enormous also the documents are going to be in french and the court owns a number of businesses and friends so how are we going to do discovery on those and those witnesses this is part of person merican bank versus green case the court noted in that case that an important part of this is the availability of compulsory process to secure attendance of unwilling witnesses the cost to obtain attendance of willing witnesses  clause worth millions and he's used he's used this court judge kelly concluded by saying in his of his twelve page written append and nothing nothing could be more difficult and inconvenient than for an individual with limited income and assets to defend a lawsuit in a foreign speaking country over one thousand miles away based on the of both facts the court finds the state of illinois without question an extremely inconvenient form for danielle given the fact that it was not a close call for judge kelly i think that on examination of the record it will not be a close call for this court either we asked the judge kelly's opinion be a firm thank you so much for your time th in bringing witnesses here interpreters etc etc that's something unique about the divorce act that's not in the not anywhere else and that's the ability to get one spouse to whatsoever in this decision that's that goes to the mirror is that goes to whatever the dispute is between the parties let the french words resolve one can't decide these issues in a vacuum we have to know what's official before cases while you're looking for that if i could ask you in the in the in the in the realm of a political distribution of property is is there is that do you foresee any litigation with regard to you know of her health lifestyle those behaviors that generally come into coming to question and the answer to that question is i can't think of one person other than her who could possibly be brought here for a relative on the aerial race into this country t