and ok we don't totally rule out purchasing as a basis for general vers their kitchen but we notice that fred martin motor company those guys are just all over the place in california selling cars remoting their website in california everybody in california the cars come through california i understand that tell me more about what it means to purchase from california who these vehicles it's you insurance you an agreement for the supply of the certain amount of automobiles within a city  days or sales or any other number of economic activities should not be controlling what should be controlling if that economic activity is substantial and and that's really what we're getting down to here is whether the contacts here either in the specific jurisdiction analysis or the general jurisdiction analysis include anything that fred martin points you in its briefing such as the maintenance of an office or any other sort of physical contact with the state and what burger king held and this case perhaps goes right to the limit of that neither of those cases would have come out otherwise i would posit if the publication had not occurred in california and fortunately we're in the hypothetical ground there we national newspaper you can buy it i would guess that any grocery store in california at the checkout stand and they know perfectly well when they write the story that number one she lives in california i actually wouldn't know where arnold schwarzenegger lived iffy haven't decided to run for governor as maybe some people are from more familiar with the celebrities but the national enquirer has done the reporting they knew the woman lives in california they knew that she made her career there and they published a statement about her being too much of a drunk sids her former jobs which would obviously impair her employee at the plaintiffs have taken place in the forums what it requires is that the defendant has felt that injury with him for ok so tell us what  what looks to me like the punch line encounter v jones with fisher south roatan petitioner cal there edited an article that they knew would have a potentially devastating impact upon respondent and they knew that the brunt of that injury would be felt by respondents in the state in which she lives and works and in which the national enquirer has its largest circulation under the circumstances petitioners must reasonably insist abate being held in a court there now in this case in the record and i couldn't find where they knew where he lived but also they certainly didn't circulate their car ads in california as the national enquirer had its largest circulation  ninety four to ninety five and three forty four two three forty eight and those items  from new york who comes from arkansas california they say she's a drunk and can't think can't do or work the few contracts to do in california and they circulate the papers in california had well certainly you don't see any difference i  whether we have to say that because schwarzer decker does his work in california and has his name in california and lives in california and the injury would be to his professional standing in california if it looks like he's showing for harvey or kind of a reduced status among celebrities whether that's enough or specific jurisdiction i submit that it's not under for martin ford or whatever it was knew that fortunate here was a resident of california no the only evidence on that is that by opposing counsel where one employee of fred martin motor property interest in the right of publicity in ohio and and so if pressure that there was no injury and california i think i'm going to start out by stating things i think are simply facts and then we can decide whether or not we have injuries and where their injury where the injury might be we have an ad published and ohio using mr schwarzenegger's likeness and using the word terminated so it's clear that this comes within the purview of that he's entitled to protect i think under ohio law  metaphysical concept with respect to money that's never been paid where the harm is i think the harm that he feels is likely to be where he well he may feel it is harmful his property in ohio or his right to plaintiff it seems it seems to me that the argument that there was no harm suffered in california is a weak argument it may be that there's not enough harm it may be that it was not purposeful lavell not it may be that they didn't even know he  california find out a little implausible but that there was no harm suffered in california when he lives in california and it is his economic interest harmed certainly was not the intentional harm look at where it was to be likely to occur where it is six i think we've used the term expressly and we have said that express aiming means directing wrongful conduct at a known former president that's why i was asking you before whether the defendant fred martin motor company knew that force an egg or lived in california as i like tend to be new york media stars i don't think there's any evidence of aiming or incense of harm or anything of that character is there any more evidence that we can look at to determine whether fred martin motor company knew the torture never live in california let's suppose that we go along with the proposition that the fred martin motor company knew it was harming the property interests in his image of arnold schwarzenegger this so you lloyd star wherever he may actually live did they know that they were aiming this harm at somebody live in california is there jurisdiction because any wrong here is a run under ohio law with damages suffered in ohio to a property interest recognized in ohio and it's not equivalent to an injury in california caused by a defamation which is targeted by a publication in a publication circulated and this is a very far cry from the national