contacts in the district of columbia tens of millions of dollars were exchanged by customers and there's been a persistent course of conduct with the international finance corporation now the nd basis not apply to the international finance corporation for two reasons one we have a nonresident alien and it doesn't apply to a non resident alien and number two the international finance corporation itself is not a of what i thought you were going to say but it makes it really difficult for that to understand what role those plus factor elements are playing and think i've looked at that at the conduct of course set forth in crane versus carton in our case we have a many contacts they are for example we have as i mentioned earlier we had  contacts by the shareholders we had contacts by depositors there were trips to the district of columbia by very very senior people they were in fact the chairman the general manager of the bank the chief international relations officer the truth business development officer and these are placed over a number of years and the international finance corporation contacts were were also over a number of years and animals and it was a publication and you went through all of those d of factors and we have significant contacts in the district of columbia but it's really clear and crane versus car they do not have to be directly related to legislature that had even if as a constitutional matter there were a tort happening within the district caused by kind of outside that if if that person outside the district had so you know never been in the district never planned to meet it or said no relationship with no benefit from the district it just wouldn't really be fair in the there's a legislator judgment to have them have to appear in the just district  if that's the function then it's playing then it would seem that a lesser level of continuous context might actually satisfy that policy interest here's a sophisticated defendant that is coming in all kinds of i have is that it seems to fall so far short on the constitutional grounds and i so my question really is how did this case get teed up this way why district i don't i don't know i wasn't in the in the case below you want to but i i do believe you are correct that there does not have to be a connection between the injury inducing but there does have to be conduct in d c and that's what we have we have years of conduct not only a persistently pursued by the bank for purposes of raising money i think the judge will always confuse with international relations versus inter investor relations they  our contacts if you will know these are investor relations that the bank was and gave him over a number of years and they're trying to i mean we don't have an exception but the ration one of the rationales for the government contacts exception seems to be if you're coming just to do government business you know coming from other states because the united states is the seat of government it seems like there could be an analogous doctrine if you're coming from another s and then i guess the counterargument that you make is will wait a minute this is all commercial but i think it's an open question now while it is commercial there is up four point seven three percent ownership why the international finance corporation of the entire bank and and that's significant in addition to the shareholders that they had they had other shareholders that they had also deposits and it was the way i look at a judge is this the plus factors they don't provide jurisdiction we have jurisdiction along them statute because we have two things one we have an anon  significant so in this case what the judge did she did what we refer to as well she should've taken an aggregate approach to this whole analysis she didn't she look the judge looked at understandably but she'd look at the website or she looked or the just looked at other shareholders and then they would discount that contact and there's a will there isn't enough here there is the not there website isn't enough but collectively resident who was hurt and the bank took cover behind if you will the judge's order and the judge's order was really clear as a matter of law we are not going to consider any of these contacts by  an alien in the district of columbia period so the answer though to your point is yes there was not a motion to compel motion the reconsideration but there also was not was a motion for a protective order by the bank i mean th the judge ruled and it's almost like there is somehow a mandatory in the walk to tory appeal requirement i don't believe there is judge will all due respect to opposing counsel i don't believe there was a at do that and as we know it's expensive than the judge was really clear on how she was ruling so we only have a couple minutes left so i want to point out we statutory issue i mean i make sense especially with issue would be decided before the constitutional issue but it just strikes me that there really is a question whether there is a claim here a defamation claim that harm is the forum so you have you know shirley jones just like in color has gems in d c and the question my question is what is the d c you know the legislation mean in having those plus factors here and so we're going to hale you into court here but if you're really off you know that the teenager who called caledonia that even though constitutionally your caller's john's behavior to court here we the district of columbia don't don't want to go fair reading of what the district judge did the statute itself is set up with the three requirements and when you look at the word regular modify does or solicit business engages in any other person is a course of conduct judges exacting things you have to look at these kinds of categories and consider whether or not they even apply and that's what the sister judge did she did it carefully and they i would also note if you look at for example mr outselling supplemental pre joined so the fact that you have four customers out of almost a one million customers is not a significant contact with the district of columbia there's no evidence that the corporate customers were asking or that the bank was actually in the district of operations in palestine so i don't see any of the fact that they submitted under under the existing laws a circuit for example thirty emails written over a period of four years to a little email list that did not target  transaction that occurred by a website for a total of five hundred and seventy eight dollars and importantly the amount of revenue from the workhouse remorse over the four years that the judge gave your sexual discovery was a mere six thousand six hundred and eighty  you have in the environmental research case not only a st amendment right to sion but a whatever we want to call it a recognition of an entrance of the district of columbia does not want to turn into a national judicial forum i think that could be out and reflect on look at the cases that the heavily relied on grows the silver well the less i film and they both carve out that in cases in which the due process interest is exactly at issue when you have a context that don't relate to the did not intentionally go all the way up to the limits of due process so that isn't it the case that even if the defamation claim alone would have been enough that's not the question before us it still supplemental brief opposing the motion to dismiss and he doesn't discuss the government contracts exception they're all that's a ninety three dollars well wouldn't that be the place to raise the issue  not a motion to reconsider or anything like that that's that's opposition to to the motion to dismiss that's correct your honor the district court allows the party after jurisdictional discovery was completed to file supplemental district of columbia to a d c resident i think that's really important a mistake is trying to set a new standard i don't understand why that's relevant to the statute assumes that the harm cursed to d c relevant resident on the issue is do you need to plus factors i would agree yes your honor that is exactly right i missed mention that because that's not really an issue before the court so we're just going through these plus factors and what it appears to me is that they're trying to layer in another requirement that plus factors according to crane versus car which is the leading case are to be evaluated but they're not jurisdictional requirements jurisdiction is what are they you know have excuse me you don't have jurisdiction if you don't have a make means of achieving personal service that's the purpose of the long arm statute so if you don't meet the long term statute there's no jurisdiction that that's really all there is to this here you know i guess you're not you can say jurisdictional they may not be constitutionally required but they're necessary for personal jurisdiction isn't that right i think that is right but the plus factors are not jurisdictional those are filter filter without if you do not succeed in getting you don't get jurisdiction because you can't get service isn't that right you get that service a process if you're from the service of process i'm talking about personal jurisdiction you can't achieve personal jurisdiction without achieving service a process and you can't achieve service a process unless unless you satisfy the long arm statute right well that list case i think that's what ye government contacts exception does not apply certainly it terms of this assertions in the complaint they are replete with arguments or the allegation to stand as a matter of law is there any point where they make where you make the legal argument that any legal argument that the contacts for any reason should be prepared that the government contacts exception should not apply here and i was talking yeah you don't want i don't know the answer that you want i don't believe so but i know that the oed the judge's order was really clear in that limited discovery and what we never had was a motion for a protective order discovery the bank argues that its contacts with i have see should be excluded and there is no reply read there which would be the perfect time to raise it i mean and might have even persuaded the district motion to compel and then the post discovery supplemental briefs i think about you know well of course we disagree with that as for preserving that i mean you don't have to but has with the structure and but i think the question is was the district judge ever fairly no i just want to see whether any other judges had a question scarily not will take the matter under submission again thank you very very interesting argument us morning take care