where a plaintiff has chosen to bring suit in a most inconvenient form that is so vexatious and oppressive as be out of all proportion to the plaintiff's him being yes this is not that case over eight years ago this suit was brought against these d c defendants in their home form the very place where new mighty us trust was formed for the very purpose of receiving young lawful all right but that doesn't change the fact that the made this initial choice of forum was made for legitimate reasons and here in this case seven years went all of these things that have occurred already if they were right if the defendants were right this case was actually a precedent that seizures they could have been should have made that argument we back at the beginning are too inconvenient for the district court to decide to move to dismiss for failure to serve you might a foundation properly but are part of those issues that could be easily resolved cardless of where the district court chose to make a motion to dismiss and the reality is is that if if this case were somehow not to end up in taiwan they're going to raise a whole host of other taiwanese procedural interest extol defense is who knows what whatever whatever their community anybody can invent they're going to raise in all so many issues that we've already overcome over all these years are going to be raised but i want you to explore this the way the district courts see the case in the way is it true that  the represented him decided to the fabulous these trusts in the district of columbia and took advantage as they were of the opportunity to do so here so that the trust could reasonably expect that they would be sued here and that they might encounter a very difficulty in responding to a suit but the district court and  court case and i'm aware of and probably not another district court case perhaps aside from the district in new jersey its decision that has dismissed a case almost soley on the public factors it considered the public factor is why oh oh the supreme court has said that living in gilbert the court said after going through all the private factors said it has a place it has a place in the analysis yes it does but the place in the analysis is not the same as it is in a private factors as countless countless cases have found and in this case in particular the public interest factors are not that weighed i mean in cases where the public interest factors were significant in piper those are quick cases were multiple people die and the regulatory agencies in those governments in those countries were investigating you know public corruption there was countries governments were investigating it this is not that case it in the reality is i mean they're asking they're asking how should purported spouses who claim to be multiple probably the only one left in taiwan for a law that for almost one hundred years now it's been lawful to have multiple spouses this issue is not going to arise again this is not a particularly important issue of taiwan law it's hard to understand but it seems like each side has a different characterization of what this case is about legally the complaint presents it as a case about someone who's untitled to proceeds from an estate and some of the money has been hidden away in washington trusts so it's somebody who has a claim an ownership interest trying to get access and that's a d c question of you know is d c trust law is d c you know other kinds of laws being used as a vehicle for a fraudulent conveyance and i take that to be more or less your characterization and your opponents characterize for me to understand how to how to reconcile those views and how to understand their kids i mean i think first of all those issues that defends or is there not essential question in that case the central question in th case is whether these assets belong to the marital state that's the primary question they're trying to bring in a question as we down the road that  said yes you're right then the plaintiff's damages in this case may be lessened but it doesn't take away their claims and  not to assert those claims she knows that she can do that she started to do it then she voluntarily discontinue those claims she can do it instead they want to they want to argue piecemeal wherever they can  isn't there was an air right yeah i mean that's not the central focus i mean there's no dispute after seventy two years she was a spouse of y c so that's not that the domestic relations question that they're raising is not the central question in the case it would also note that you know first the supreme court ha mortal occasions dealt with issues of domestic relations women and now you're sort of speaking out of both sides of your mouth because i thought you just told us this is not a case that requires resolution we are we destined relations issue it's not and you know it's a question about the trust it's a question about the setting it up it's a question about the provenance of those fun absolutely absolutely apart from any and in fact it sounded like you were considering that  the proper forum for figuring out the domestic relations issue is it's time to i one yes every day we do we do believe that that is where p c we should raise that argument the only reason i even brought up the other point is because they're going to come back here in trying to argue that it has to be brought here we don't agree with that at all we don't we don't think that that has to be addressed here  record statement here is that it view the central question as to whether you were a lifelong resident a citizen of taiwan was denied to ansel's a right under taiwanese inheritance law that the plane never crashed and that's what this case is about well no i mean if the plane never crashed these assets never came here there would be no case when exist and not only that i mean  you could take it even a step further and say looking at paper imagine the paper was created for the sole purpose of doing flights back and forth between assets or are holding and are holding these assets improperly that's the question and that's a critical question in any way and also when it comes to the private factors i believe that the court made the district court made numerous errors when it looks at the act when it looked at the letter with translations i mean thirty five years ago the district court said in the inner a case in any international case there is going to be users of translations whichever side of the world this case is heard on in this case there is certainly is certainly going to be the case the declaration of trust itself is in english you know if we were to go over to taiwan and ru paul we're go my us trust euro vocally delegated their authority to these trust matters we think that that would be a violation of the of d c law now we've never seen these supposedly delegation which presumably are in writing and i would have to imagine they have all of those all sorts of complications in them because let's let's imagine that these trust managers decide they're just going to steal the fines right easy trustee can say oh well we you know we wash our hands of it where the trustee but you know we don't owe any fiduciary duty they can't they can't do that so there certainly are potential questions of d c law about how the trust has operated here you know we we need discovery to fully flesh those issues out you know we put it we couldn't just assert things that we don't have the full information yet to address and that's why the issue i mean we will be deprived when i say we i mean the plaintiffs will be deprived of their access to evidence necessary to prove their claims in taiwan ignores that issue but that that's the law so loving that they may try to argue well there are certain certain individuals witnesses who really are witnesses favorable to them who would come here regardless if they asked them to they could put them up in taiwan they could say what they want and the plaintiffs wouldn't be able to obtain documentary evidence to undercut their position and the reality is also they have the burden anywhere showing that any of the witnesses that they would want to call would be unwilling to attend the trial here or to be deposed or anything else it's their burden  the court in taiwan and if they do and if you win is it your understanding that because they are entities and they have submitted to the jurisdiction and collected then and there in taiwan no not at all in fact they argued against enforcing it you know making a judgment forcible that about it was a little confusing to me because they argued against i thought it was a term that said that they would of a company they could be in delaware and you got to go to delaware and say you know turn over turn over the shares change title the shares to you know to the plaintiffs i mean there's a reason why they opposed it you know it wasn't just academic they oppose a lot of things and in all it in reality all of the things that they opposed were not for i'm not a convenience issues there were determining that this case belonged in five want and indeed when analyzing that question respectfully one must bear in mind what the supreme court has said the central purpose of an f n c inquiry is and that is to determine question here is whether you allow him warm a lifelong resident of taiwan with the night certain spousal rights under taiwanese inheritance law what importantly we didn't get to is indeed each family in the in the case and i'm not entirely sure why you and how you represent their interests here we do not represent their interests and we're not looking to get money for them we are doing is defending a case under ten thirty dosh one in ten thirty dash three of the time on civil code and under ten thirty dash one of the time when so which they use as a predicate for their claim they must first establish that you will on one was in title to the full spousal share because if she was not entitled to the full spousal share as the district of new jersey or grand when dismissing this action for the companion action for my own convenience grams if she  no matter which size of share i'm entitle to i would want to pursue that you might want to pursue but this again goes to one of the issues that the trust group was alive to you might want to pursue it but you first have to get through a few the settlement agreement if we go to that for a moment and i will want to come back to the to the difficulty on that the number of spouses but someone agreement was entered into by the heirs of y c one was entered into by the first fact recognized in the settlement agreement that there were three wives two were in fact that the spousal share interests claim sample wasn't the intention to settle those claims three all of those people other than winston wong have sworn in declarations in the new jersey case that their mother was married to wife she won but those people are siblings of winston wong the principal antagonist here they would all have to be witnesses on those that was a settlement and plaintiffs characterize as so many with respect to the taiwan assets with respect to that one point seven billion so that's that's a question but assuming  claim on those assets it's just it's just not clear to me if she has any claim on the question is only do other people also have a claim it's just not clear to me why the fact that other people who are not in this case might also have a what professor soup has indicated on stage it is her remedy and if she didn't take it she waited for her remedy was to go against the other half that she didn't get and satisfy herself through that other believe is larger if i lose my claim that it's larger i don't want to take from the others but i do want to take now that she was willing to settle that you know from her with whatever reason why she's you know her position is trial it does because these defendants are in the say there is no extra that you are entitled to because your contribution to the marriage was exactly what you got already distributed and or you could have gotten distributed by taking from the other half of th frankly is and the judge is concerned was that those issues are issues that the taiwan courts are available to determine what is problematic in our view is why these three executors who each of whom is a lawyer and type on one of whom to make of the fact that the trusts were represented by the same firm in new jersey and in twenty eleven had filed a motion to dismiss on hormone communions grounds it did not take that tactic here in the district of columbia and given that some of the delay here was because we held the case and parents waiting for the supreme court to decide and then because of the death of the need to point the execut and i'd like to safe to try to preserve it so what i'm trying to get at is to the extent this is your home district where the trust founded the inconvenience he authorized establishing the trust here i mean he contemplated whether the process could be sued here well and that given his own life style there were bound to be challenges  given the amount of money you are bound to be challenges and he was willing to have the courts here resolve matters as to the tru there is no form selection goes or anything else suggesting that the case with any case over the trust would come to d c there's no evidence that y c long in any way thought that there would be a he's a sophisticated businessman he got all kinds of  trials so that's later down the road and that fall seems to me in your life in terms of an argument this is a very early stage of the case and you know we're awfully late in raising this motion there's no requirement we had to raise it  those claims to be determined it is in bermuda where the bermuda or it is going to get to opine on it's more the right place for these claims to be determined is in taiwan where the taiwan court will get to determine its own law second transfers into the trust those transfers in that have to do are alleged to have taken place with respect to shares in delaware corporations that are alleged to have been transferred into these trusts and in which uniquely available in taiwan firstly frankly who was wise the long how come he had three wives what did you think of his wives was the the type of person who was transferring assets away in order to deprive his and the people know the people that exist interacted with on a daily basis where the people in time on at f p g who are the people who are his business colleagues and his friends and his family members all of whom are over there there's  any conversation about the purpose of setting up these trusts with the people who established them and in fact when you look at the list of people that my friend has come up with his list of people who work in this district is limited to six people in fact it's really double counting because he counts the law from that side of the truss as well as the partners in that law firm that's out of the trust this district kind of virtually no involvement in this matter save for as judge posner fan the mere fact that the trusts were set up here the rest of this case the entirety is located in taiwan and that's why transposed conclusion as he did that this case belonged to taiwan and just one because i have my times as well as well  t the court was correct in stressing that under gilbert and under piper and importance with this works precedent it is sufficient for the court to have determined that its own processes would be substantially burden venning convenience by the retention of this case in this war that the courts clearly b p a and and in jackson this court has said that it is appropriate to look actually so the here today not sure who runs president j twenty one eighty two eighty three one eighty one the high court ruling does not have a binding presidential factor so that they said was incorrect also as the amount of the fines everyone agrees there was one point seven billion dollars taiwan assets this case is over two point one six two billion dollars no matter what happened you thought it was shorted if those two point one six two billion dollars were part of the settlement agreement the amount that she would have received would have been double more than double actually so no matter what she was so she was shorted another issue is obviously if if these they knew from day one that these claims were asserted under taiwan law absolutely no question if it was a president fixations for them to defend here make an effort to show errors of the law but basically you have a clear abuse of discretion in the balancing of the factors in our discussions i understood  us for either one of those in our view is sufficient to require a reversal in take them together and you take them with their delay in your way wait on the point at which you would be remotely or there is no no occasion to put it into the record you know that the other issue is that big fight for the court said speaking specifically judge rogers your question about the public factors in piper the court said under gilbert dismissal ordinarily be appropriate where that trial nothing is true is inform imposes a heavy burden on the defendant or the court and where the plaintiff is unable to offer any specific reasons of convenience supporting his choice we have provided specific reasons supporting our choice first of all obviously it was the only place where we could have system i don't think it's been held to be in adequate and some of your arguments seems to be saying well what we claim get because of the nature of how education is done that witnesses nonparty witnesses in taiwan are not required to produce evidence they according to them they can be compelled to serve as witnesses there is evidence in a beauty i clearly that the airplane and piper says that's not in california or pennsylvania and you're making a different claim which is in a way a comparative legal process claims saying that the kinds of processes that the meet their their threshold burden to argue that taiwan is you know that the private factors favor taiwan they can't do that all the courts do take into account cost people as well and the where a party as start to invoke the jurisdiction of the united states supreme court and then another issue before they even once asserted or in our convenience i can't imagine that's ever