in fact judgment was two thousand and eight and it was only i'm sure there were collateral and unrelated proceedings involving the other parties and then an attempt to enforce and large the judgment against robert ankle that it was deemed of particular urgency that this matter this or what is very important to note is that when all of the arguments are set aside it costs more gas to drive from my offices to here and to return than robert hankel sold the product to california twelve dollars more than you know we were here based on a procedural matter you're trying to relive it gave the basic underlying merits the question before us is not whether your client did or did not do something for which a judgment was in or to guest and that's a long past the question is whether your client's interests are entered strictly in intertwined with abraham so there might be some way for him to resurrect i'd like you to address how rule fifty eight applies to underage no need for separate document concept you got three orders in one order nothing wrong with that they're all treated separately  why why is his contempt citation inextricably intertwined with your client's desire to undo the merits of a judgment entered more than two years previously the reason that it was other method by which was introduced was at the heart of the sanctions order and it was that which jones fees then revisited vacated his decision that was essential to the determination of the underlying arguments regarding the request there was a default judgment and this was the consequence of advice of counsel and i was mr johnson who would submitted a declaration that declaration of course that came the conduit that everything that was happening the attachment the j declaration was deemed to be by new science or was argued to be the offending material that gave rise to essentially a number of components of the judge's order it was on the advice of that counsel who would inform mr henkel that it would be just ghastly expens allowed a default judgment to be entered in against him and there was no complaint about personal jurisdiction there was nothing it was entered the only question before us is whether somehow that can be resurrected and the only way that happens is if it's inexplicably intertwined with your attempt to set aside the contempt citation right you know the facts not your honor the issue that gave rise to the question of the intertwining of those was based solely on the argument presented by ne calls order the order itself was stated forgive me if i may order was on june fifteenth of two thousand and twelve and that was an entire order that included with the three components but  and it were filed twenty eight twelve filing an appeal can't july thirty f twenty two of us more than thirty days oh absolutely it would have been had that been the only order all right so then the only way you can resurrect that is it has to such the argument would have been just as easily made that the appeal taken on behalf of robert hankel only was one part of a deal from a part of the water as to which the entire side it would have been essentially free it's important to bear in mind that the facts worse that were central to the appeal were the ones that were contained in the johnson declaration that gave rise then on the basis of the exhibits to the sanction order it would be more than just one in order that  attorney it was an attempt to undermine all points essential to the very basis for the argument on appeal now that twenty dollars sale somehow gives jurisdiction should give personal jurisdiction to of cour going back to the merits right now what i'm going to is the personal jurisdiction issue because i understand but i mean the reality is that that would normally have been handled the at the commencement of the lawsuit right it would be it would've been handled but in an appeal  of an issue but you're trying to say because he only got comp dollars or something isn't the issue really whether his intended actions would if if if hankel intended that its actions but adversely affect new science in california and that was the point and that channel it was only because the new science itself directly solicited the purchase of that bottle that that bottle ever went to california woman a health directed robber henkel to do science for the purpose of writing that one sale otherwise the only sales would have gone to live in a house that significance because women and helpless located in florida so the object or the target of the color would never have been double fornia it would have been florida all right cancel your lover your time they a new science corp maybe since where we left off was that in determining whether handfuls actions caused harm to new science in california do we consider the potential harm or only the actual harm to the science or what was the actual harm to new science from mr han cause actions ok so let me start the beginning the test is in your brain purcel foreseeable that foreseeable in this case this now several times as you can probably tell from the record that new science middle undisputed evidence that has exclusive distributor relationships in each country putting them in a health which is the united states one so the evidence is undisputed for this record that new science would have been entitled to a four hundred thousand dollars per order form or away from a legitimate relationship but instead robert hagel and michael hankel decided just to take new sciences issues and the motion for reconsideration was only file them out mr abraham was not a party to this case and so under the clear rules that does not extend the time people so unless the court is for the questions i'll do mine for the next that going beyond that we want to talk about further on another issue is that robert heibel feel the need is burden of proof and this is an issue we've focused on quite a bit because he keeps on insisting that new science has the burden of proof when