district court erred by failing to look beyond the record that was made in the florida state court now whether the issue was framed as a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the southern district of new york as i fr or as a collateral attack on the full faith and credit issue as judge hellerstein framed it either way my client had a right to submit evidence going to the jurisdictional facts and to have judge hellerstein consider that evidence and make his own did novo determination of jurisdiction and independently of what the florida state court said my client was a stranger to the up there is a waiver sovereign immunity is if the the act itself or the does ignition was as a result of the act precisely the florida court hearing any proof or take any proof or make any findings my client was a stranger to that case my client is entitle to his day in court the supreme court has said dozens of times that a stranger is never precluded even despite prior holdings against his position the best case the blonder tongue case one nine hundred seventy one a stranger is never preclude and judge hellerstein didn't consider my evidence and that's error my client had a due process right as a stranger to the florida case to put in our own evidence and we got evidence from the horse's mouth from the state department which said cuba was designated as a result of its efforts to undermine governments and foreign in latin america the state department makes no mention of the viewer killing it doesn't even make mention of cuban activities targeting at dissident expatriates the state department holding is conclusive as a matter of give me the state department position was accepted as a matter of law in the arrest case the d c circuit and because this is the core of his holding full faith and credit requires a federal court to recognize a state court judgment unless there is an obvious and grave jurisdictional defect apparent on the face of the state court order that's not the law on the contrary he's required to look beyond the face of the order we have supreme court precedent of just the year standing in school v l vs e l which says of course the party challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the first court of course is entitled to put in evidence and jurisdiction can be presumed unless it's disproved by extrinsic evidence and i could tell or seen seem to be trying a distinction between prejudgment discussions injures titian post judgement suggesting that after judgement is entered against a party and family libel that in matters of turn over an execution just as a judgment there is some lesser standard is that what you understood yes i think you saying something like that but that's wrong for the following reason my client was served with a subpoena we have an absolute right to challenge that subpoena as void for lack of subject managers diction and making that challenge judge hellerstein was required to look beyond the record of the florida court determine whether a federal court can entertain it but he seemed to think the full faith and credit clause was a jurisdictional grant that's right that would federalize every state court judgment and federal into federal court would not yes it would and that's why it's error it conflates a motion to dismiss is not an appealable order to you just felt it was an appeal clearly not a denial of a motion to dismiss may i speak about the personal jurisdiction issue but that issue is governed by three cases at home in new york and not subject to general jurisdiction second gucci applies that same those same rules to the recipient of a subpoena the service of a subpoena on the new york branch of a foreign bank is insufficient to confer general jurisdiction next to it what's left specific jurisdiction as to that there is a relatedness test again citing gucci and here we produced all the information related to the operation of the branch within the form and the rest of the requests for accounts that perhaps are anywhere around the world have no relationship they're not unrelated to the activities it is thinks of between as a piano as opposed to the seizure of assets that you hold elsewhere yes they can only seeks information informations everywhere is correct and i mean it certainly certainly there would have to be general jurisdiction over your client to reach assets to do to require your client somehow through a judicial process to bring those assets within the reach of the southern district definitely but i but what about the information i mean that you know there is that one with regard to information as opposed to assets well i think with respect to information which is what's at issue here right i'm not that it's information that your time well i'm not sure that there would be a distinction of that kind because in new york it is clear that a court federal or state sitting here cannot compel a turnover of assets that are outside the jurisdiction that's it that's the special rule for bridge for banks the separate entity rule recently reaffirmed by the court of appeals so that's with that's that's the law with respect to assets with respect to information we have time or gucci market and i believe i completely concur in what your honor said in order for the southern district of new york to compel information from around the world that is unrelated to the operations of the branch within the forum the court would have to have general jurisdiction there which it does not i don't  ok i thought you did but any case that's my position or you're hopeful yes all right you could be hones turn over information about the branch in new york sorry on of the bank turnover of mason yes the branch in new york we made full discovery with respect to the records in new york and you heard over assets we have turned over one account that qualified as a as a so called phase one account yes we judge allowed us to deposit that account in the registry of the u s courts and we did so if we we strong authority for this court to find both that there was specific jurisdiction over the v a as well as the scope of the information subpoenaed to be enforced  which state procedures so the bynum kings don't i think is a very strong authority for that and and let me distinguish this case from some of the others that were cited first of all this is post judgment not prejudgment so gucci daimler they were dealt with general jurisdiction judge hellerstein held that there was specific jurisdiction and he cited to section two hundred of the new york banking law but that he didn't cite the zero two the business corporations law which authorizes the secretary of state to accept service as an agent for the corporations that wish to to transact business in new york and and the legislature was pretty clear about section two hundred in one nine hundred fifty one when they amended it to limit at service to transactions of which the the service arises right well i can't speak to that what i can speak to the legislative history  i i i i just don't understand that it all makes no sense to me to be honest i think there's some confusion perhaps in what we've been talking about between general and specific jurisdiction there was no suggestion by judge hellerstein that there was general jurisdiction nor in my view is general jurisdiction required saying that the service upon them was legitimate or that there's jurisdiction over them because they've accepted they've agreed to does again the superintendent of banking for service of process with regard to that business with which they have transacted in new york that seems to be totally legitimate in terms of asking them what they have a new york and or seizing from them  they have a new york that's related to your judgement that are but i don't understand how that's legitimate as to asking them about what they have elsewhere or what they more or in any way and i don't think you're asserting this that you could seize it from here but so let's just limited to the end from the asking side of that you think that that statute authorizes jurisdiction in the in a court in new york state or federal to ask questions about assets elsewhere general  court has never so held and no court has ever so held that the reason i can grow in sick once there is jurisdiction nothing jesting in fact i suggested that that might be something different in and questioning your policy and because i can see a difference between asking the pm k street it seems to me different to sit at a computer terminal and say do we have cuban assets that information is available here it's generally available here it's it's the fact that there are cuban assets elsewhere is a different matter but knowing where they are is is available in new york and so i don't see how i don't see how general joined pursuant to rule twenty of the federal rules to suit procedure the party has to respond to discovering that a lower court deems reasonable judge hellerstein considered the scope of discovery and he ordered that this was appropriate under the circumstances after holding a hearing and making fact finding things but it seems to me i realize that you won you started your own it seems to me you have a more preliminary issue and that's the subject ma the the issue you're the sub issue you raise is whether a collateral attack can be raised to where we have to have a new trial on jurisdiction because remember the jurisdictional aspect of this evidence was there before the florida courts and establishing that the designation of rose as a result of this murder was referenced during the hearings in congress to two hundred sixty individual acts  rico by cuba and there were other accounts suggesting that this was not an act of terrorism by q but that there were other explanations for the vera murder and designation here is there something i've overlooked i think what you're what your honor is overlooked and what so for him because remember that was not we didn't have an opportunity before judge hellerstein to go into evidence on this but as happens in congress today whenever there is evidence about specific terrorist acts these are congresses briefed confidentially on these the public hearing if you and i've read the public hearing in this in one thousand nine hundred two they don't refer to specific acts and i'm assuming that it's because the congressman were already briefed on specific acts but you have to show under the statute that the designation occurred as a result of this act well i don't my view is i can prove that  party was not present didn't have an opportunity fully lety and i realize it's a default judgment but courts can't make it up they can't just acquire subject managers fiction because they say they do people can't even consent to subject matter preclusion but there's no issue to preclude there's no finding and i ask you straight up and you honestly answered me that wasn't so how is the issue preclusion even if the issue preclusion were the answer the answer is that circumstantial evidence was submitted at the trial to support this circumstantial evidence but there's no finding that says to the court clerk that it was designated eighty two that's good enough i don't think that's good enough for another subsidiary issue cuba shoes or their bail or their responsibility to their bail either but the person whose houses they hold to hold them and to defend them and not to distribute them to anybody other than those who are rightfully plannin them how can they not  argument is that any time there's an execution in new york that the garnishee has the right to raise on collateral attack the jurisdiction of the court that ultimately have rendered the original yes i think the court has grasped my argument with respect to subject matter jurisdiction so i'll answer questions if you have them but otherwise i'll speak to some of the lingering personal jurisdiction questions and the first one is something that your honor judge leslie said which is that the information is available here at a computer terminal that's just not so that is absolutely not so and let me explain why mr swift who had the burden of proof never proved any such thing never put in a shred of evidence conclusion are you denying that it's actually the case i am denying that it's actually the case both information is available in new york that information is not available in new york let me be clear about that the computer systems of these banks are set up was written and apprise suppose argued but yes for that reason it's different from b and m there is absolutely nothing in the record to support what judge hellerstein said seumas party and denying a motion for rehearing and completely sandbagging me on the point right so i hope i've covered them you see the information would be available through process in spain yes yes you know we can't do it all in new york we gave mr swift wally information about  and accounts in new york and he should take that information and go to the place where the assets are that's what comedy requires and deed i think that's what diameter and due process require nowadays it didn't used to used to be able to get discovery under this court's precedent  e m used one used to be able to get this worldwide discovery so long as there was jurisdiction over the witness now i have to dime learned googy one has to ask what kind of jurisdiction is it general or is it specific and i think you need general jurisdiction to get worldwide discovery and it may be different if somebody in new york could sit at a computer terminal and find out what's on the books in madrid but that's not the case and there is no evidence of that and i hope that the court doesn't decide the case on that basis because that would be a complete sandbagging now with respect to be in em that case cannot possibly survive lucky lucky kate court case written by your honor judge carney says that the court must look at the exact statutory language the statutory language of section two hundred of the banking lawyers as judge wesley said from memory a server process and an action of proceeding on a course of action arising out of a transaction with the new york branch that is the language of specific jurisdiction not general and then i think this case is governed day for sure i by lucky because the connecticut statute in lockheed did not use the language of general jurisdiction did not and makes this a specific jurisdiction case again i don't see how i have made the point about the information not being available in new york and i think i the good word transmogrified that's what