the next item on our calendar is benjamin tagger versus the strauss group the subjects of the appeal is not to questions that were asked st one the lower courts found the case  your argument for very being jurisdiction but you do not make an argument that you are a citizen of a diverse state you make me argument that that treaty gives you that right difficult but but i thought that the case of the treaty makes it very clear the text makes it very clear and i believe that the nd circuit itself referred to the the st one the lawyers the american lawyers of trial have confirmed that i am not free to come and go from israel to my that's really what it was so obviously got somebody pissed off but the fact is that can really come and go really makes it impossible for know because some of our partner they ever did any contact direct contact with me although i tried to have direct contact with them not not to the lawyers here but in israel  so but in addition to other things my home is here and been here since one thousand nine hundred and seventy one yes i traveled around the world yes i lived in different places during those years that the the the the approach that i read in the aisle cookies that and the gilbert case that the approach is that they basis for subject matter jurisdiction diversity of citizenship in the lower court and then he lost on that issue but when he appealed to this court she did not challenge the decision on kogan on the issue of diversity needs to be revisited on the issue of the new basis that he asserted which is federal question which has not been raised again today that the treaty doesn't really i'm sorry the claim doesn't really arise under the treaty he's not his claim it's not directly related to the rights that are provided for under the treaty his claim relates to a completely separate issue that has to do with an israeli regulation that was applied in israel so we don't see any basis for federal question jurisdiction in this case and by the way in terms of treaties application for a for diversity the courts are clear that they're the treaty doesn't really do away with the diversity requirement it's not like every beneficiary of the treaty can bring bring a claim in the u s federal court against any defendant regardless of citizenship all it means is that a beneficiary of the treaty is subject to the same standard as a us america as a us citizen plaintiff and a us citizen plaintiff has to prove that there is diversity right cheek he has to prove it also and he can't because here there are two aliens on both sides of the action on the issue of affirmed on convenience i don't but our position is there's no percenter section over such but sure the plaintiff can sue in his own forum and that's the reason why judge kogan gave deference to his choice but that's not the end of the inquiry you still have to balance the private and public interest factors and here they overwhelmingly weigh in favor of dismissal this is no doubt an israeli case that has to do with the application of an israeli law in connection with an execution proceeding that is ongoing in israel and between two israeli parties and about a breach of a summons agreement that was entered into in israel the evidence is there most of the witnesses maybe with the exception of of mr tyler are their i think i'm showing that i have some very fairly strong views on for well in this case we think that it would be inconvenient not only for the defendant but also for the court which would have to deal with a lot of always inconvenient from a court they have too much business and if they can't get rid of it i'm for i'm not convenience very love it that's one of my reasons for strong views well here to be fair this is respond to the the phone on convenience i was not aware and the e mail that i received from the attorneys here from july twenty teen clearly indicates that there is no ongoing case in israel and to my knowledge there was no ongoing case in israel but we're dealing with an extremely powerful company that they seem to be able to do things that magical so the reality of it the reality of this is that if i have to go back to israel i would not but let me just say my problem is we've wherever we have federal jurisdiction and if we do not then we are simply not allowed to hear your case however valid it is and however convenient so my question for us  figure out where previous treaty in fact goes would you say it was it or whether instead the treaty simply says you have to be treated like everybody else but then have to prove  my problem i understand that you own it and it seems to me that the twenty two for the treaty about is really co basically treats israeli cooper relations and american corporations that it was created in any state of the united states other than the form state so in reality by doing so you do have the diversity and you have an american corporation that's what that treaty says and i hope i hope it is convincing that that i have the same right as an american citizen no less advantageous in like situations basically if an american citizen was in my position he would have then no problem because the only issue  that was the issue that the judge referred to so the endian versus alien should not exist if the american citizen was in my place