so we're really down to an analysis of two parts of this and that is the place where the injury occurred and the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred so little bit of disagreement about how many shall we call a fair incidents occurred in mississippi can you clarify that you say i think that it's more than they say let's just put then the testimony in depositions that have been submitted and so forth is that they had sex in florida mississippi alabama and louisiana and louisiana they even went on a trip to new analysis of the scope of the relationship the manner in frequency of communication between but did you have a problem with it ok so there traipsing across the south of the exception of the new york trip in in person and then they're talking on cell phones and i mean naturally one of them to mississippi was a lazy anissa has at all this talking on cell phones and skype me whatever else they were doing when they weren't physically together how does that help us here well think of it looking at where's the principal location of the conduct of the defendant and that is an analysis even under the comment to re statements section one fifty four where is the principle of patient is the most important involved so physically the fact that he said in mississippi talking on his phone is meaningful even though he could be in florida talking on his phone he could be in new york city could have happened across the border to louisiana while he's on his phone i guess i'm having trouble with why we're you are when you're talking on the phone is relevant to this whole consideration well some of the cases talk about that very thing because in blank verse and seal they're looking at the wrongful conduct of the defendant at the end because the wal messages there are four in less than a month judge after that initial tryst at the mississippi bar convention in florida four hundred five text messages between the two when mr bean are already filed for divorce and so by then the affections have been alienated and we're kind of done in there after it's just more of the same so what do you say to that well on that point the divorce certainly mississippi appellate court case two thousand and sixteen although that case dealt with a statute of limitations argument whether the court said in that case was that it wasn't when the divorce was actually that things can change that said it seems like if we're talking about alienating and affection it was pretty elevated when the husband files for divorce because of the affair well and that been his and looking at the until the divorce was final i was there to say that they could not have reconciled with before the divorce was entered in that case i kept looking at these cases coming out of this is a sippy does the question of an answer the question of where and in our minds and our position is that it was alienated certainly when the divorce was final and like you interest in maintaining this toward what is the what is the purpose of and actually that's the final kind of the issue here on this choice of the last matter because mississippi has its star would be alienation of affection and that there is actually a criminal statute in mississippi that makes adultery upon my point is something a little different i mean it seems that that mississippi has this toward on the books because they want to allow citizens of mississippi to invoke this torque to bring this claim against america more or a homewrecker whatever you want to call it but that's not this case your citizens who was involved in the breakup of a marriage of two louisiana citizens why is mississippi interested in what he wanted at citizens to be sued by a louisiana citizen and you're here exactly an affair with a resident from florida but she was working south of memphis at hooters and ended up coming to engage with her well both the district court and the apparently have cited this statement that while the state's interest is not a strong in that case because it was not a mississippi marriage where both the district co stopped was that the miller court went on to say we still conclude that mississippi has and special interest in this case because it was the stock of the trust that came about why was with they are at their home but that's why i don't think that just where all the sexual encounters occur necessarily  gives a conclusion to this case i think it is where the cases are talking about and including the restatements comment on this where's the principle was ok sion of mr jurisdiction there seems to be some confusion in some of the arguments i'm reading on why i have a point it's a very different analysis and have different possible factors and i want to talk about what the public policy of mississippi did when it company which are which are the joys of august coming out of the mississippi supreme court but one of the does not give you any basis i would submit to conclude that the center of gravity is in the fact that the wrong alienation was largely occurring in mississippi by your client being on cellphones and whatever else he was doing to communicate with her and encourage what ultimately resulted which was she left would suggest in terms of the way if you're going to say text messages or phone calls are factors and you'll be adding to the language of the race that if you do that if you say that ok have those away against what we know we have to lo place for marriages and you can feel comfortable that you will not have the heart stolen in mississippi can it have that interesting i think that is the issue in this case i think that is the issue  we have we keep in this callback you know even though everybody else is doing away with it we're going to keep it because we want to protect this city marriages of this but doesn't mississippi also have an interest in holding its citizens accountable for breaking up a non mississippi marriage that has not come up and we don't have any expression by the mississippi supreme court to answer your question that that anywhere near the same interest would apply to our marriage are or ha never said there's nothing to base any pronouncement of we don't have it legislated and that of this essay of this is the supreme court has never gone so far to say we have a policy that would protect our marriage especially expressed maybe we'll say we want to protect the farm we don't have but well protect a quote foreign marriage from interference by a mississippi citizen that's a little bit more specific and i  you have an interesting i can remember when texas had this chart and then they did away with it and there was a series of states that had this for for years and then did away with it in mississippi has clung to this cause of action and therefore  what would they do and we don't have a pronouncement one for the other on this do we from the supreme court we don't have them saying we're only protecting mississippi marriages they have or we are protecting all marriages and we want they're not that's not what's been referred to and so but what miller was so good for our side of the case about is this miller says you can hail a defendant into court under the long arm statute under due process basically is these factors can be accommodated by applying the correct choice of office and so bringing me back to bringing bringing him our government back to that you've got a center of gra so if the if the mississippi public policy if there is one and i'm not here to say that they really love it if they really want it's not strong if it's not strong then it's not going to be able to reverse or overcome th fact of presumption that the center of gravity in this case is in louisiana and so so i think the issue in this case is as you say she said dismissively have a public policy that would protect  marriage as i stand here i don't think we know but if we do it's not strong enough to overcome the data of those o policy and this is it being says that mississippi has an a special interest and that is because the actions of john daly and his our position certain is that mississippi's state interest is not limited just to a mississippi marriage and that given does not the mississippi does not want to become a haven or a voice for where the institution of marriage could be a rather doesn't matter that the quote you gave the land is from the concurring opinion it is from living current opinion but it also was a case involving as well as the fish case where there'd been a lot of question is this a tort that we should do away with such as texas has done away with enough states as well and good in louisiana has made it really clear from the very get go that they did not recognize that tort so again it's an issue that's not being an i would say clearly defined by the mississippi supreme cour