this appeal involves two important issues whether personal jurisdiction over the appellant comports with the require ments of the due process clause of the th amendment and the nd issue is whether a formal order of investigation can serve as a basis to seek contempt sanctions into perpetuity as it pertains to the st issue personal jurisdiction to obtain jurisdiction the following elements need to be established here the f c c is traveling under fifty u s c seventy eight you subsection c this allows for jurisdiction to be established where the investigation or proceeding is ongoing or where  such person resides or carries on business however what is important and where the trial court erred is that this federal statute permits the ability of the jurisdiction to be obtained to the limits of the  th amendment due process clause the th amendment due process clause specifically states that personal jurisdiction is satisfied when number one the nonresident has  contacts with the for home state and to the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice whether personal jurisdiction is based upon a federal statute providing for worldwide service the relevant inquiry is whether minimum contacts is with the united states however as stated in this circuit in the b c c i case the respondents contacts with the united states itself do not automatically satisfy the requirements of the due process clause th amendment in applying the th amendment d process clause the analysis of minimum contacts must occur with purposeful contacts with the foreign state so what understanding the law and what is required which is minimal contacts and the exercise of jurisdiction not offending the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice you now apply those factors to the evidence before the trial court and what you don't you have to establish that your client's liberty interest yes and those liberty interests are part of the th amendment due process analysis and particularly here we have a new york attorney new york resident has no business conducted in the state of florida the true target of the investigation is an individual named guy genteel who is a legal and proper has no contact with the state of florida so it is the contention of the appellant that due process of the th amendment requires those minimum contacts and they cannot be established that is the  element the nd element would be offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice there the courts would focus on whether the minimum contacts are reasonable but it also includes the burden on the this merits deposition in new york they did it offer that as an opportunity but nonetheless that still doesn't alleviate the fact that the subpoenas are issued out of the playing in westchester county or caribbean with already fly two hours and twelve minutes to miami international airport creates constitutionally significant inconvenience even if they require to be deposed in miami what am i missing what is there about this she lives and had an affair and i it's not that far to an airport in westchester or in new york city and  said it's fairly more than three hours fly to south florida from from new york where it's the constitutionally significant convenience well the mere fact that the f has the ability to prosecute this and pursue this investigation out of their new york office but chose to do it out of their miami office and i would get into that in in a nd but to answer your honor's question a united states that has had no minimum contacts regardless of yes modern flight and technology should not be hauled into a court where they have no expectation again  process does require the minimum contact analysis with the form state that is laid out in b c ziai which is a case out of this where the court specifically states a defendant's minimum contacts with the united states do not however automatically satisfy the due process requirements of the th amendment and that is a direct case in this circuit in addressing your honor statement about the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and the inconvenience without getting into too much personal issues my client takes care of of family members up there and she has  significant burdens on her that do make it extremely inconvenient for her to come down here in addition again in analyzing whether somebody important to the case law  should reasonably anticipate being hauled into a court that analysis applies and here mister marin has no expectation of being hauled into a florida court when there's zero florida activity going on i see my time is getting down there is a nd issue of the formal order of investigation so to the extent that i am not able right now to direct on my  jurisdiction at all it was a civil action against somebody on a rico crime and they were are going to bout personal jurisdiction in florida so i don't know how that base helps you in this context well i think the b c c i case helps it wasn't nationwide jurisdiction case right that focused on contacts with the united states well is that correct it  was not a case of jurisdiction based on contacts with the united states the b c c i case did focus on contacts with the united states because that was a bank that had offices throughout the entire nation and eastern seaboard that's why the court of b c c i notes that they are departing from from the costa mary review of a defendant i may have and i thought the holding was just on a jurisdiction they they said it was a form nine convenience they dismissed it on that ground that is that is correct but because they were did go into the personal jurisdiction analysis though including minimum contacts as well as the something i haven't addressed or not but whatever i'll say you don't have an opportunity to correct your honor so i will quickly go ahead and address the issue of if not a minute thank you your honor of the formal order of investigation authorizes the f c c to investigate individuals or entities for various potential wrongdoing that formal order of investigation specifically authorized the investigation of the f c c investigating guy gentil and whether or not illegal broker activity is going on is what their investigation is about and the subpoenas relate to that investigation that's an incorrect analysis under powell it's whether the investigation relates to the formal order of investigation not what the random purposes of the f c c i think we at least ha traders cast a formal order stated the commission staff were to investigate traders cafe and its affiliates and others for potential violations of section fifteen a of the exchange act as fifteen u s c seven unregistered broker dealers executing transactions through interstate commerce this is a subject matter directly within the commission's us off the nd both courts found that the information sought information the subpoenas were trying to obtain was relevant to that purpose it was a direct trail of money or relationships demonstrated in demonstrating that real time traders that they had a master account with shirt trader which was also known as swiss america which is a broker dealer register in the bahamas but not in the us and was owned by god genteel a broker dealer who is also registered in bahamas but not the united states the evidence showed and the commission explained that sure trade has assured traders clients were in the us and as to notes it's simple enough to conclude that because the subpoena it was relevant to the investigation and to gentil ensure traitor and it was within the scope of the formal or correct the formal orders written broad enough that includes not target and as they investigate that they learn about the connections they're written broad enough not only to encompass the specific person name but also other individuals essentially allowing the commission to follow the evidence where it leads test that was set forth the republic of panama versus b c c i the st step in that is that marriage directed activities at the relevant form here are relevant forum because there is a nationwide service is the us as a whole and its undisputed unfairly at a severe disadvantage when compared to the securities and exchange commission marion made no such showing nevermind showing such a constitutionally significant or a commission is permitted under seventy eight dollars use subsection  to bring its enforcement proceeding where its investigation is taking place which is what it did here bringing its case in miami in the southern us of florida where this committee is being investigated and there are a lot of reasons to do that this was not a case just  there were as there were potential defendants and people being investigated who were in the bahamas there were people like them in trade who were in the southern district of florida so choosing the niamey courts in order to enforce a piano was not unreasonable moving on to mentor aid although this was not addressed in the opening arguments but it wasn't a brief we do think it's important to point out that as recognized in the u s versus clark supreme court case specifically following powell and  what is required in subpoena foresman proceedings is that a recipient have notice and an opportunity to challenge a subpoena civility in an adversarial proceeding that's exactly what happened below your honour's after the application was filed i mean trade had ample opportunity to brief the case over couple of months they made arguments about how many about deference to the new jersey court and about the logical facial nexus between the formal order of investigation and trade bait did not c the showing that the commission prior to the report recommendation then united states i'm sorry this korean exchange commission filed the declaration of jessica weisman was the attorney in charge of the investigation in which she explicitly tracked  recommendation in trade was silent they did not seek an evidentiary hearing until after the report recommendation was filed and they never made a case or a factual showing that demonstrated an evidentiary hearing was necessary the court to have evidence before it the affidavit referenced by mister ferguson by ms weissman was not submitted until after the matters were briefed and we had no ability to even respond to that particular trade there was no hearing in madrid not even at all argument hearing or any kind of there when there was no hearing whatsoever so for the court of men trade to make any ruling it was done so without any evidence as it pertains to the we objected to the report and recommendation and then i believe in response yes that point that the commission filled out i'm sorry filed an affidavit that was that was afterwords objections but i will i would defer to the record on that i believe we had the report and recommendation we filed an objection and then they followed the response i am confused about what happens out when analyzing the power factors of the logical nexus and the relation this form a lot or of investigation was issued in two thousand and thirteen it's based upon now we're talking about a completely new and different issue i was getting  up well the formal water of investigation was part of the initial discussions and grieve but as it pertains to wrapping up i believe that personal jurisdiction is required under the th amendment due process to analyze minimum contacts not just with the united states but with the foreign state you then move on to the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and whether or not there is a constitutional significant burden upon mister moran to appear i believe that stablished through the fact that mister moran has no minimum on tax and that the case law requires an individual to have some reasonable expectation to be hauled into a court in a any particular jurisdiction otherwise the government the the fallout of this case is that any government