health the division subjected itself to specific personal jurisdiction in texas when it sent a letter to the late and associates l l c threatening an inspection of its only place of business and the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not a fan of the traditional notions of her play insubstantial just threat of an inspection uglies workplace the letter was purposely directed to buckley in texas and threatened a real action not one that was pathetic all or for in here the division what's to enforce california's regulatory scheme in texas this court challenge from wendy nexus was caused by the plaintiff unilateral condor that was into fish workplace in california but never had a workplace and when and when you keep when you talk about a place of business and workplace in my correct that the september letter really spoke about the place of employment is that correct nine hundred is blanco road salinas california correct yes or it is it so is it your position that the place of employment mentioned in the letter is different than the please of employment mentioned in the attached  these alleged contacts california veiling and so for texas law precisely the hypotheticals that our court in was in ski said don't count because your honor if difference between that scenario into an instrument versus was asking cases because once the letter came to texas it wasn't it wasn't in force in california's rules in california which we didn't raise the issue of the hypothetical comes this was an traced our case in defense distributed yes exactly and i just never briefing question because i think i assume that would be your answer your reply brief was filed before we issued that opinion so it's very understandable you would it but if i'm not mistaken california then brought it to your attention with discussion and did you ever submit a twenty a j response no your honor i didn't i know that calendar the division did and they submitted it to refute the facts we're just careful to reiterate was in ski and said there are two key differences are you remember this and i don't see either of those differences applying here one was that the letter itself was the tour it was the st amendment chilling and the other was the new jersey's attorney general very clearly was saying we are going to reach you texas citizen or your company anywhere in the country where is this seems to be exactly like it's a attorney general who has a completed in forcemeat action end at someone doing business and having an accident in california unreasonable probably to rely on a clear text of the letter of the threat inspections workplace in texas because what the division really means was an inspection of a nonexistent workplace in california but on the other  division can't have it both ways and this conflict being our interpretation of the letter makes it impossible to appropriately interpret such a threat for small business like berkeley into were to seek redress and in the case in it were just inspections going to occur and that would be in texas interpretation of what that letter means we can read the letter itself said that if the body conditions were not corrected that the ins that there would be an inspection of published work place and since since the california had already stipulated that there was no butler workplace in texas then the only place that inspection could occur was in texas so reading the letter as written any reasonable businessman would assume they were going said place of employment and now it wants to take the position that the definition of place employment is expansive enough to include a truck but there is no there is no texas rolling stop in california that can be inspected  if there were one they would allow to establish that the that the division has threatened to come to texas coextensive with due process to answer question are no the court does not need to reach that question but as the nd part of the board's question about the repeated statements about tax law being bogus and the process i think those statements are best read in the context in which they're made which is in disputes between private parties and it's fair to read that statute is who extensively due process where the statute applies to the individual not exactly the bias that all individuals i'm asking you probably saw that in my concurrence and in in defense distributed there clearly wasn't a full agreement on the panelists to our nonresident state public officials from forcing state laws in title to different treatment so it's a tricky you know it was it's up a basis for the alleged fort whereas here the collection letter the letter sent by the division our efforts to morris california judgments and if you look at the complaint it's not challenging the  we found that the new jersey a g did create minimum contact with texas because he failed to limit his insurance man actions to the plaintiff's new jersey business and here we've got  september letter that walk wise does not limit this and force me to the california business and i just wondered you've already answered george harrison's question but i'm still a little fuzzy on how you can still win a lot of  i'm sorry your honor as you raise a good point regarding the consistency of these facts with the district defense distributed case one of the things that the division did not do was as a texas because of the only places the only work place was was in texas and also the division directed at or directly to texas and it wasn't just for an attempt to exercise it regulatory schemes in california it would have limited to california had it done so it left it open for interpretation that the inspection would occur in texas and beyond interpretation because of the stipulation by the  enter another state to enforce its laws in the form state without being subject to personal jurisdiction in that state i mean it's bigger than a six thousand one hundred and eighty dollars fine and we have this case it's an unconstitutional lower each for the division to do so  just because an employer sensible into a foreign state does not give that state defacto control of the workplace little's that employees employer in a foreign state and that's what the division wants to do here mr richardson suggested that your position would mean that california couldn't inspect your trucks even here after when they go into california that's not a position we're taking it all around her california law when the workplace safety accident occurred in california fully adjudicated and now they're just trying to collect on the fine so they send the letter to the only place they can say may need to play if they may very well be the what they intended but it's really not what the letter said if they didn't want to inspect the work place outside the form of california it should have made it clear because the problem is the conflict with the attorneys licensed in other jurisdictions who came to california to take depositions to wear wigs during those depositions and an ass no turning can't account reach a deposition without wearing a wig california would certainly be justified in forcing it rules to not allow their attorney to appear in a california or until appropriate disciplinary proceedings with fines or whatever but california is not authorized to go to that attorney's jurisdiction and try to require because when you think about what kind of chilling effect this is going to have on commerce from trucking companies really other company to texas a may want to either do business in california or have interstate commerce through california that would