was substantially connection with the state of illinois was a contract to negotiate purchase of one hundred percent of the truck with no noise corporation and it couldn't be more substantially connected with the studio and a lot going on a we have cited to the courts of the cases i think that the status is that jan mark decision while still technically good law has been define decline refuse to follow the fact if the  effect of the work is felt within the former state i would i would suggest it seems to me that the state court would have to section over any form regardless the work happened as long as one of its citizens was them and that makes no product that my client then sells to end users in texas oil and gas refining none of that process has anything to do with the state of illinois except that  no now frankly i don't think my clients knowledge of the of the plaintiff being in illinois is really relevant to this consideration with to the extent that the court may consider that or at least the wonder it seems to be one individuals i understand that just because he lives in illinois doesn't mean that the corporations now there are some issues about the business cards and both my finances with the people from my client who testified said i may or may signed the contract and then sent it to my client in texas from execution in texas the substance of that if you focus on that what are we actually what is the substance if you will not disclose consider when determining whether or not is right is jurisdiction the performance of a contract is really intact in the s c makes a disclosure of information shared their standing in illinois but they could have been anywhere when they picked up the phone and disclosed that information to my client in texas there really is no connection to illinois but for the fact that they recite in the law the deal has nothing to do of cites to the page one of my question and i said to him so did you schedule conference call and the answer is we schedule so many in my poor questioning of the trial  through with that i think we may see might well be where you got yours fiction but before you do that before you make that decision now you have to move on to the due process question and go through that list of inquiries as to whether or not it makes sense whether with the money has to do with selling i think if you look at the bird that would be placed upon likes for coming to illinois and bringing independent third party witnesses to illinois to testify on their behalf with respect to this alleged disclosure of information it's a great burden on go through a look at the form state's interest in this what the state of the way really has a minimal interest in this ordeal if any because the whole chain as a whole business transaction is not taking place within the state  that are going to overcome the burden on the senate to defend this case here in the interest of the state of texas where all this stuff is happening where the oil was is taken out of the ground where the product was sold all this is happening state of illinois and should reasonably expect that if there's a problem with that runs transaction outside the state of illinois it should be adjudicated outside of the state so when the court takes a step back looking at the contract then if you get past that if you have to go on to the due process argument i think you find that there's not a process in this case there's certainly a huge bird like fact i'm doing thank you and i will there i don't i've never been involved with it i don't think it's necessarily appropriate for this court take notice of that because frankly something happened after the fact and has absolutely nothing to do