of summary judgment on the personal jurisdiction issue the things i would like to highlight are just as far as the waiver goes there's there's a there's an argument over whether or not the matter was waived i would just  dot he specifically cites finally rule twelve big so on the waiver issue i would respectfully submit the court not find waiver at the district court did not find it a lot of the merits of the person jurisdiction argument i really laid out the two briefs and you know i would go back respectfully could be initialed the burger king state which i think the language of perfect supreme court case parade but you know it's devoted investment group would citizens of north dakota that happen to invest somewhere in singapore we really expect that lawsuit to be adjudicated in the singaporean court i don't think that we would have i don't think that's consistent with our process again if you look at the language of burger king it which i think is very important if you go back to that source burger king says well the state has a manifest interest in providing again it says it's misrepresentations allegedly made by one singaporean against all others it is investment group in singapore and i would say this is the final factor i know the factors for a five hundred test generally are not as significant attorney or the defendant did not the defendant lives in singapore which is not exactly a process that you know cross the street he was materially dis vantages in the case and it's shown by the way that the rest of the cases his summary judgment motion was entirely adjudicated as it's seen by your pallies brief on the quest for admissions that were deep deep deep fault it by pam i mean if you really look at the case that's not really the best way for united states court to you know adjudicate lady gage and even civil litigation in our country you know i think it has that kind of essence of unfairness and although that's not a specific factor i think that overall egypt or anything else so again i would say the court at least abuses discretion and not holding the essentially an adventure hearing to make the plate to prove its claim even if you move beyond the personal jurisdiction issue whether the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in north dakota in connection with his sale of fraudulent real estate securities to the plaintiffs and nd whether the district court correctly entered summary judgment based on d n a admissions under rules thirty six dollars that established all the elements of the causes of action at issue the district court was correct on both counts and should be affirmed on personal jurisdiction north dakota long arm statute is coextensive with federal due process requirements and so the question for the court is whether the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with north dakota such as the exercise of jurisdiction over him is reasonable specific personal jurisdiction u the factor test the st three factors that are given significant weight are the nature and quality of the contacts number of contacts with one being sufficient under appropriate circumstances and then the connection of those contacts with the claims that issue and i believe that counsel oversimplifies what point its claims are in this case they're not based exclusively on misstatements or omissions made by the defendant in singapore to plaintiffs in singapore but they're related to defendant's actions as an agent on behalf of the securities issuer north dakota developments which is in north dakota elsie i partnered with north dakota development s they sold investments in modular housing units in the oil fields in north dakota but more fundamentally these investments were real estate investments they were they were made securities as well by virtue of modular housing units with a with a management agreement but fundamentally it was the sale of real estate we don't have a case where a product into the stream of commerce in north dakota had made its way to singapore at all times the subject of this action is real estate in north dakota that at all times state in north dakota they are up to you feel free to think where you are in the factors and that kind of thing but am i correct that there was never anything like  advanced in the district court at all right that's correct that also came up for the st time on appeal ok thank you getting back to the factors the defendant acted as an agent for north dakota development to get a north dakota company and that's evidence plainly by his receipt of commissions for his sale of these investment products to the investors transaction based compensation he recruited investors to invest in these companies or in this company you organized investment seminars assisted with the exchange of paperwork and investment monies from singapore to north dakota entities activities etc these are these are extensive deliberate contacts that he has with the state of north dakota they're directly related to his sale of these investments are not random attenuated and  north dakota council raises the last two factors which are of lesser significance of those weigh in plaintiff's favor as well on the jurisdiction question certainly north dakota has an interest in having its securities laws applied aided in the sale of securities without any sort of geographical limitation on those persons regarding convenience of the parties i'll just say that it was certainly convenient enough for the defendant to travel to north dakota when he was making money on this venture party's counsel is short in terms of convenience the parties it's not convenient the parties right i mean that's an easy call it's inconvenient to the parties but it's inconvenient equally i suppose we would say see it on those on those bases the record correctly found that defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in north dakota it was evident the district court's order and i think it's evident generally that it's not a particularly district court did not find a waiver you didn't have to because it found personal jurisdiction it existed independent of any waiver but the defendant did file an answer prior to ever raising the jurisdiction issue in the in the district court and under rule twelve waved he did he actually file any answer ready just file a document that the district court kind of labeled is an answer well that's a good question it was it was not the answer that lawyers are used to seeing the paragraph by paragraph admission or counsel and saying it or he notified the court that he no longer intended to participate in the case and he was heard from again till after the court entered judgment against him more than fourteen months later  never served his rule twenty six dollars disclosures he never responded to discovery requests and among those discovery requests were requests for admission plaintiffs filed a motion to compel responses to that discovery the court held a hearing that point to fail to attend the court entered an order compelling discovery in expressly warning him that sanctions were on the table and so alternately plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in light of the deemed admissions under rule thirty six dollars and the court considered those matters admitted in summary judgment accordingly those admitted matters established all the elements of of plaintiff's claims in this matter  motion or that or the finding regarding the deemed admissions which is incorporated in its summary judgment order that order was never contested and so those admissions is not an issue here at this point unregistered nonexempt securities in violation of north dakota law and i'll note for the court that those two claims do not require any sort of misrepresentations or omissions on the part of the defendant judgment order in the district court should be affirmed on that matter as well and i'll just note what defendant is attempting to do here is is deliberately withdraw from participating in the case failing to participate feeling to respond to discovery feeling to oppose the summary judgment motion and then after judgment is entered against him come before this court and essentially ask for a complete do over this court should declined that invitation  generally not grounds to grant a motion without a little bit of inquiry but there certainly is an indication that the court district or did conduct an inquiry it reviewed the admissions it incorporated the other thing i would say is i think the burger king case again if you look at burger king incorporated even within the con concept the process incorporates some of the same principles about whether or not it's fair to bring the defendant to that particular course thank you very much