the street second with the corporation counsel's office over the last sixteen years as a private advocate on civil cases i have always been instilled with the belief that despite first two thousand and seventeen where a horrific indication that we have strayed very far from my understanding of justice in the war what occurred on september twenty subject to rules section three three sixty two automatic stay in bankruptcy with the full knowledge of these circumstances the ma e judge proceeded with what i characterize as a court of general inquisition to bring the to the stand and invade my attorney my client's confidence in us which were instilled in me and interfere with my ability to represent people who had lost the ability to speak let me ask you mr le bron's focusing on th personal jurisdiction objection you argue that failure to perfect service defeats person jurisdiction that is not a personal jurisdiction it would seem to need to be unquestionably established by your being in the jurisdiction practicing in the jurisdiction and having entered an appearance in this particular case and so when you look at the personal jurisdiction to the process of parties but already parties satis is not required in order to take a deposition of a witness in forstmann of a judgment awesome power to command somebody to do something and either there's a very cut and dry issue of law which we seem to be getting to very quickly here as my position as an advocate and  party permit the court to simply bypass the plain language of rule forty five requiring that i somehow now rather than being a at arm's length from  the dirty business of the proceeding itself now become a participant when i am there as an advocate part of the tripartite system in which there are an advocate for one side having her for the other and the judge calling the balls and strikes this instance is very very dangerous and it has been repeatedly stated by courts across the country that this business of interfering with the representation by hauling an attorney as a witness is just so dangerous to the system because it does not not on the attorney client privilege question but still focusing on the subpoena and or its relationship or not to personal perception because the you object to the lack of a formal service subpoena on personal jurisdiction grounds i'm trying to understand why that would defeat a presenter i said president jurisdiction and and i gather that part of her answer is when a party is being called as a witness no subpoena is necessary when a nonparty is called a subpoena is necessary is that why you're dodging talking about the dangers in your view of collapsing party vs counsel well i bring that up because the danger is in blurring the distinction between the advocate and the party and that's what i think that at one trying to be responsive to your question just colored that why there has to be this distinction that i don't just show up and a clerk and my hands are suddenly soley a dirty with the business of the person that i'm representing and that is because i'm here playing a role in this that you were trying to evade the service and in fact had a duty to to do that and that's just not demanding your clients and that's not what i said what i said was is that there was some cat and mouse going on with regards to this process when i have that i said well that's referring to a response to responding to what the united states attorneys use those terms and that does not say it's to put words in my mouth to say that i was evading service you know what i was doing was holding the other side and the court to its burden because i had a super then you don't get to do this thing i have to defend my client's interests when they cannot defend them themselves and again that in your conduct i'm just trying to send a conduct your furring to that allegation that irish no allegation that i turned away the allegation is that a s u v turned around in a cul de sac the end of a road there's no way out of that what if you continue down that road of that work or attempted service that it was me there's no description there's no tag number i don't know what they're referring to and then the idea that people are not at home in july june or august in the district in the area district of columbia areas is i found just service so much extraordinary to state the obvious so there's never been any allegation that i ran away from any am not going to fall on my sword to make my life easier at the expense of my client my duty is to my client and then means that sometimes it turning must suffer right now i am dealing with two separate cases one of the just are going to court of appeals and one of the superior court in which my client's former attorneys took easy way out and provided the entire client file to the other side when it became convenient to do so or gave it to try to give it to the court or more handsets and that was the easy way for them to get out of this mess that i'm in right now but it was a violation of the due shiri duty i held to my client to not disclose your confidences unless that threshold had been reached that i was under process and a court order an attorney to show up in court for a deposition that person to do that is it because when do they have that power if you're an attorney a member of the bar of the court to you by becoming a member of the bar the current lose the ability to assert personal jurisdiction  no no attorney but on the other hand there is a special rule for attorneys that if they are present before a court if a court gives an order that you try you can simply refuse to abide by it so i don't think that the number he said he was there under duress and again it doesn't whether you are subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court doesn't depend on how you got there i mean there are criminal defendants who have complained that they were brought improperly before the dispute that an attorney can certainly raise that but in fact as i understand it and again i'm not a civil attorney you're on but as i understand it generally the rules now have abolished the distinction between special and general appearances now eight defendant as i understand it in a civil action can say the court isn't personal jurisdiction over me because there are too few contacts here this isn't the appropriate forum to sue me et is maybe something that mr frum hasn't really argue which is not the personal jurisdiction is lacking because of the want of a perfected subpoena but that there's no subpoena and therefore that he's not lawfully been held before the court now i recognize that's not the way he packaged the argument but if you'll indulge me if he had what's what is what is functional it is to provide notice to a current to witness of the date and the case and you know where this was to appear and when they're supposed to do attorney to be a witness and it's not clear to me what purpose would be served by essentially saying that while the attorneys present to the court he's essentially immune from service a process i'm not aware of any court that so held and certainly not with this whether it was a civil case for his clients he couldn't do i mean that's what i'm trying to figure out is this right by these in the asking him because he's representing clients and it's a proceeding right now his or his clients that could he say that's still a fine personal rightness as to that i'm not here in that capacity i think part of the problem here is you're if i could take a step back because i'm not aware of any court that the said it with a sort of has a right to play the cat and mouse game in other words to sort of physically stay away from magical formula that says an attorney while they're present in the courts can't be surface something i mean i i stepped out of court today someone had to serve subpoena for me i could be served and you could if you were in fact a california lawyer and you were here showing up in a case and you wanted to assert in response to that a motion to quash that subpoena that actually the judge in that other case had no know subject matter of the look of this lawsuit for me to be a witness at all in other words because i live in indiana i don't have to testify in the washington d c case as i understand it rule forty five allows anyone to be a c i mean he's a practicing attorney in washington d c he's not saying he lives too far from the from the place of the deposition he's arguing well they essentially should have had to come find me somewhere else other than a court room in order for me to have to testify in this case it's really a serious objection not a personal destruction of jackson and that's what i'm trying to explore is what is the additional and distinct value or function of service of th that may have been defeated here but maybe we don't have to resolve that because i don't think mr brown has actually made that aren't i i don't think he has and i don't think that is certainly the way that he has raised it where he's raising a personal jurisdiction defense that it can be argued that magistrate judge over him and because he was physically present he was notified of when the deposition had to take place he was ordered to appear and and then disobey the order to testify if there are no further questions we respectfully submit that the judgment of the district coleman is a criminal prosecutor and that he's not completely familiar with the minutiae of our civil process and it is the panel has amply pointed out a different animal too much he writes me and nowhere in that document did you assert an absence of personal jurisdictions no you probably sought relief from the court without seeking without his or you know lack of personal jurisdiction and then you showed up and be hearing slash