uninterrupted and then we will begin with questions starting with chicken ten then judge we're on and then myself we may have to run a little bit longer for that purpose but silence any personal cell phone that may be in the area and also that we prohibiting video photos and some recordings and that session the same as we would in  the court the district court's judgment in this case should be reversed for two primary reasons the jurisdictional position that your jersey the three general took below is wrong and contradictory it's wrong because under the due process clause g be purposely avail himself of taxes i'm literally becoming the attorney general of texas censoring texas speech that was by and for texas and we will hold fast to that proposition because it accords not just with the st principles of personal  iction but also with the governing precedents of the united states supreme court and this court and i think it would be a disservice for me to stand up here today and just pound the podium and say colder as many times as i can and likewise they could be dis friends on the other side of the table to stroman as many times as you can the courts task to navigate us presidents and reconcile that we can do that in great volcano but that is not our strongest argument and that is not the simplest reason to reverse the strongest and simple its argument is the contradiction the estoppel are in ever greater all should not even allowed to take the position that he took below because in the washington case he took the opposite position and used it to his advantage and that's what we'd like to begin  going today is with a stop all this is a paradigm case of gamesmanship trying to have it both ways just because one that again likes one quarter better than another and is trying to engage the forum shopping washington actually rendered the whole thing about who can and cannot be sued in texas the reason we're not making that argument is because we don't need to make that argument is stop argument applies not just to the bottom line holdings but of course vendors and not just to the bottom line conclusions that a litigant takes and applies both to when you would think that there's a court judgment and the court's opinion and its holdings applies not just to the bottom line position the great wall asserted but also the positions that are necessarily entail and so the the position i think if we determine anything it's based argument we should have counsel to great wall finish the sentence he says it's been distributed had minimum contact with washington because there has to be a reason that there may have been contact and there is only one reason there's only one way to finish that sentence and not finish it that the defense distributed control the web site in that case in the washington case the only thing at issue is website publications and you'll see from the very get go not just later in summary judgment briefings switch on the website and broadcast a website from texas to the entire world you can see in paragraph twenty one of the complaint for gray well it says that the court in washington defense distributed is a necessary part so that's the position that he necessarily took at that minimum contact exists because defense distributed is controlling the website and the reason that that contradicts the position here is because the jurisdictional keystone is the same but we're talking about both cases jurisdictional debate about website we have in washington is just the flip side that's litigation about people that refuse to sense but website they refuse to take down and refuse to flip the switch down there they're suing the federal officials because the better officials aren't willing to censor this website so we've got the defense distributed and great wall you have two sides of the same court in washington great wall says defense distributed can be sued because they control the website if that's true loses the case below because he did that and more here doesn't even have to get there we can show you the advantage that great wall got that position in two days but again day one he filed the complaint day two he got a temporary restraining order if ever there is a scenario in when courts were courts are supposed disposition so we have both in this case and either will suffice to get across the line the nd thing that whole talks to is this issue of express reliance and express holding something that resolves a dispute on the merits as opposed to simply advocate making a representation that they know the court will need to rely upon and whole stand for the proposition that that nd coming and plied reliance is enough to satisfy traditional suckles is the court i want to reach the judicial exceptions requirement does not was with the court in washington filed the complaint asked the hero similarly when he asked for the clear an injunction the whole case is predicated on the notion that defense distributed is unnecessary party and that they have personal jurisdiction over defense distri now my friend today i think is going to stand up and try to finish that sentence and say defense distributed if you think that the state of washington and defense would have been in contact with the state of washington because he's only answered that question can be they have minimum contact because see that we think this case stands under colder and not stroman because the letter focuses on texas voters with respect to what it talks about and where the impact is felt and what you just described is the letters what the letter talks about right here the letter is talking about a web site in texas something that shutting down that web site and silencing people that are all in texas and so we can build letters focus is texas both in what it's addressing the actual computers that they hope to switch and tell the website to publish are in texas and so any reader of the letter the great wall st is going to understand it that way now we don't dispute that the letter certainly pays lip service to the notion that gerber great wall is trying to help new jersey and advance new jersey interests by doing this but the gist of the letter the focus of the letter is absolutely texas and we think it's more so than the letter instrument recall that in stroman the dispute was about arizona real estate properties and the letter says stop doing things that affect arizona real estate stop doing things that arizona citizens now we don't deny that the letter instrument also had some texas implications because there were people in texas and that's why i say our distinction is going to be the most beautiful decision in the world i think the court their relationships around them the censorship cause of action for chilling speech is like that right the letter itself is the actual wrongdoing and my friend on the other side it best answer he says to call her he agreed to call her lies if the message itself to be that any publication of these this information miley's new jersey law that's both on the internet we also had before greenwald dropped the hammer we had a practice of mailing these files are u s b drives now the stock there is a brick and mortar library in austin texas that used to publish these matters that now is covered by defense by a great well as law so it isn't just the internet it's essentially a total speech crime that bans everything that my l official was actually and i think the policy is uniform nationwide that it's not this case this is a targeting case and we don't just infer that from the letter we have specific record proof that it's a targeting case remember the great wall stood at the podium and that he's going after quote a texan named cody wilson and one of the claims in this case is selective prosecution the whole point is that defense distributed publishes information online already thousands of other people publish the same information online every day right now over five hundred times including the treatises saying that it stands for the proposition that the texas long arm statute does not extend to defendant officials what is your best for any federal court case where in outcome not dick a defendant and fishel was obliged to defend its state laws in another state i don't have that case in one or the arguments as i understand it from the other side is that strawman renders that holding and strawman doesn't render the holding to defeat that could address any case where a defendant a big tool was obliged to defend that state's law federal case and the reason i focused on it did you cite heavily back page but back page of course the dallas headquartered back page actually goes and sues where the cook county sheriff is in more than just because of illinois so i don't have one at my disposal but i'm confident that we can supply one and excited talking about it not interrupting our rudeness i just have so little time and this is a difficult case you know you've done it all you can lead to getting all over the country my fact question the cease and desist letter here this is because if we were to distinguish from it it might have to do with what the letter says the  st sentence does say stop publishing quote for use by new jersey residents you know where do i see the word texas in the letter so it's hard for me to say that new jersey is trying to have the bronze and focal point beyond texas country so we had two answers number one texas appears on the letter in the address that's where they stand and deliver the letter and the sides don't dispute that so they delivered it into texas and hard on section is that even though the better paid lip was in violation of mississippi law now would the rule of law you're ordering us to adopt the distinguishing of stroman mean that google could have hailed mississippi's attorney general into california to defend its law or is there a limiting principle i'm missing i don't know if there's a factual distinction i think our legal rules would be that if the letter the communication itself the litters the cause of action then the person has conducted purposeful of  he got it exactly right that single cease and desist letter especially one that does not provide a state official with any personal or economic benefit does not reflect an effort by the state official to purposely avail themselves of texas law and texas as a forum and it's not a basis for personal jurisdiction in texas courts are three pillars to my argument today which i'll lay out and then judge jones i'm happy to entertain any questions st strawman we'll see is directly on point and there's no basis to footnote at the end of any event solicitation this does not apply in arizona and in fact on the internet and in commercial law all the time engineers say context we is a great wall and marching into texas and telling the website to shut down so that the defense stupid will not have anything on the internet how do you how do you reconcile th and as we've explained we do believe that there are ways for defense distributed to come into compliance that would prevent these files from ending up in new jersey which is always been the touchstone of the analysis it can see that from the letter at page one hundred and seventy eight of the record where we talk about files being sent for you for new jersey presidents and you can see it in the text of our criminal law which is to see thirty nine gosh nine o two which specifically only criminalize the distribution to a person in new jersey  and ninety six and three hundred and ninety seven and the record is from a press conference at the bill signing for the new permanent law in new jersey and i think it's actually important to see exactly what the new jersey attorney general said in the record there because it helps to explain exactly why  sell their dangerous weapons into new jersey that he's trying to stop the next company like defense distributed and fight the good stuff industry by making clear that selling these guns in new jersey isn't legal there is no question that he did talk about defense distributed and the founder specifically because defense attributed and their founder were the ones publicly telegraphing their desire to violate new jersey law but he made it clear that from whatever state that individual resided or that company was incorporated whether it was arizona or california or illinois the tie in was to new jersey and he would be going after to try to stop that dissemination all the same there's no evidence that he was purposely availing himself of texas as a forum and texas law in any of those interactions and i think mr flo distributed chose to take it back sion to post these files accessible to new jersey residents that was their own decision it wouldn't matter to the new jersey attorney general whether or not this person was in arizona or in illinois or any other state and it needs forty five this opinion shulman actually explains why that distinction would not be relevant in strong and there was also a question about whether the arizona commissioner was trying to reach into texas and take steps that would limit what an individual could do in terms of posting on the internet from texas and peach forty five this court said that it may be true that the conduct was occurring entirely in texas but where those interactions were involving arizona residents the arizona commissioner was essentially asserting distribute u s b files to other individuals and person that new jersey has never taken a position over to its defense or should be to maintain their website that similarly blocked access to new jersey that would be enough no i understand mr pierce is going to raise questions about that and i'd like to address them here how do you how do you tell your internet service provider you can block access to care and say oh that's something that happens in all their contacts all the time so for example in the casino system for online gambling some states allow online gambling  states don't and so they block by a p address to be able to enter so if your ip address comes from new jersey who is a in this case because he knows the companies they're required by law in new jersey right now to block anyone from new york or pennsylvania t g to access online gambling because the laws are different in those states and so you can actually sit in new york city and husband campbell and i'm i'm pretty i'm pretty much of a check but those are not publicly accessible  honor it's actually quite clear that any web site even a publicly accessible one can block ip addresses from certain locations i don't think mr flores is going to disagree with that as a technical matter and there are other websites that have posted similar files that blocks new jersey addresses and other states that were involved in the washington district court medication so i don't think there's any significant factual dispute that it's technically possible to block ip addresses coming in from new jersey and so i think that that's a significant basis to rely on for understanding that the new jersey attorney general is focusing specifically on timings to new jersey and i'm certainly making that representation to you today the fact that we do also want to know as part of that analysis would be good defense distributed encourage any of its customers to travel across the border to philadelphia and ask them to download the files there and bring them back into new jersey that would certainly raise the question but the fact of blocking the a draft so long as they know that they have an effective geolocation system and they're not working to do work around for that system certainly addresses the questions under a new jersey statutory framework and goes to the heart of the public nuisance analysis of the new jersey attorney general that's talking about all your honor what happens in the th circuit and in the western district of washington was a challenge to the federal government walls that were being changed relative to the accessibility of science it was not a direct challenge to how many jersey law would operate how washington state law and it's the same type of argument made in washington and western district of texas and in the federal court of appeals it governs new jersey to the question of the cases we're talking about  states so i don't understand the relevance of saying well we're talking generals not making any money off of that so that was relevant to the constitutional analysis although it also ties into the statutory  sherman realty actually raises that very question and answers that instrument realty the court says is it possible that the deck starting on case is about a tort and answers clearly that the faithful application i mean allegedly unconstitutional law which is the basis of an distinction between the application of allegedly unconstitutional laws and traditional course of conduct and it makes sense that the difference would apply here because allegedly tortured conduct involved the kinds of actions that show the targeting of taxes  technology and the students of carnegie mellon showed all the ways that you can publish information they put it on ties and t shirts i made a film it was it was to show that it's not just on the internet and in fact in this entire letter describes the harms in new jersey residents the public nuisance law in new jersey the assault weapons bar in new jersey and subsequently we have a criminal law in new jersey the entirety of the letter in the auction is the time to new jersey i think a hypothetical might show something similar here which is to imagine that you have a california doctor that's prescribing synthetic opioids as non addictive and he's doing that on a website supplied to texas records and the texas attorney general sense a letter saying we haven't you cannot distribute these  use by texas residents and here's the relevant texas law and at the end he says to stop distributing these i don't think anyone believes that a doctor would be able to herald texas as attorney general into the th circuit to defend ability of a consumer fraud law where you can say not eligible for people who have been the savior that city so there's plenty of other contexts where we don't do it for example we don't care when you have the online gaming because the actual ability to access the pins is right there on the computer you don't need a nd step of mailing something like you would need a wind so for example if someone had a lot of limited access to pornography i don't know that simply including some sort of disclaimer would be enough if there was something about that law that violated the state law you could have a blocking of ip addresses if the stigmata went further and there's no problem with doing that in the way but demonstrate that this is really about your charity instead of texas i don't think anyone here is really just speeding that the new jersey attorney general would have wanted to take the same our so i have two reasons why i believe we never should be distinguished and i think that will cover both of your questions so one there's a qualitative difference and then there's a quantitative difference we narrow involves a course of conduct involving multiple misrepresentations aimed at the forum and that's what the in this case we have a single letter that was sent into texas and it was also a single cease and desist letter and if you look at the decision and how it burton or if you even look at the explanation in march which is an unpublished decision but obviously can carry some persuasive the fact both of them explain detail why the sending of a single cease and desist letter even if it's not going attorney general but is simply by one company doesn't demonstrate purpose of ailment because it's an effort to try to avoid litigation the fact of new jersey public nuisance was the fact of new jersey st and even the attorney general's desire to bring in unfortunate action would not create a basis for jurisdiction in texas there might be a debate about the dormant commerce clause and how far new jersey can go but everyone would recognize that that site would be higher than the district court of new jersey and the rd circuit would be service providers was to threaten them if they did not take down this website crikey no your honor there's there's two facts that i think are relevant there so if you could page one hundred and eighty one of the record we informed the company dream host of the violations of their acceptable use policy but actually there are no threats contained within we don't even say anything beyond you should be aware that there is a violation of the full use policy i don't see the three most of the california companies  is fact pro and just listening to you both today would you agree your arguments are people urging in other words if the letter had clearly said there is no one forced you to texas i don't think they'd be saying there is jurisdiction but if your argument is that we will be forced in texas i'm curious if you would still contend there would be no personal jurisdiction to think that would be a completely different case your honor for the reasons that you've described there still need to be an analysis of it seems like you know the tourney generals state and federal are always expansive and they warn and they say we will come get you and when the department justice does that they know they'll have to defend the bedroom law and where it does seem like if it relevant how do you compare the back page case where a county sheriff has decided to bully something eat out why why would it matter why let's say let's say defense distributes very small what's the still have to go up to new jersey when it's unclear of new jersey willing to force against distribution in texas to aso the logic there is that to the degree that there's any simply wonders passage of the law even without a cease and desist letter that courts would want to be handling based on their own jurisdictions but you don't have the mississippi attorney general held in to court in california and you don't see cases about one state medication abortion or consumer fraud or synthetic about now yes now i can hear you all right thank you don or i'll start with the unstoppable issue and say that we heard precious little about that now the challenge we made was to have new jersey explain what is their basis for saying the defense distributed has minimum contacts in washington we said there are only bases with control of the website they have no answer whatsoever you also heard no answer whatsoever for the notion that they got an advantage from that by attending a temporary restraining order but the luminary injunction  holding that were necessary parties and the final judgment that is key to close way to solving this action without even getting into the merits but the merits matter because we're just a stronger let me be one piece of case cleanup and then get into the heart of the debate my friend talked about the edmund case and i'm certain in mark ace this is an unpublished decision from this court and the reason in march doesn't apply is because quote the activity that that was attempted to regulate by its letter was employment activity occurring outside of taxes so there the letter isn't going into texas regulating things happening in texas it's going into texas regulating things outside of texas much like stroman realty now let me talk about that ambiguity that we have on the merits you have minimum contact there's a debate between me and my friend about what exactly their policy is and there's a debate between me and my friend about who else they're going after if there are any interviewees we win that for two reasons one is procedural one is substantive the procedural reason is that this is a rule twelve motion if they're huge about this case they don't believe our pleadings in the solution is to deny the motion to dismiss and litigate us on summary judgment is greenwald doesn't believe our pleading when we say that he's not punishing anyone else and he can try to litigate on summary judgment but he can't the to this question of what is the policy and what he censoring and what he's not censoring and we've seen as judge l right point out the last sentence and the letter is indeed an expansive prohibition on all kinds of distribution and this is the legal point i want to make the whole reason that the  make sure you have an effective geo location then he said something different he said block the addresses and make sure you have an effective geo location and make sure that there aren't people cooperating somehow circumvent they don't have a straight answer now and that circuit they certainly didn't have it for a straight answer in  definitely didn't have it in the actual letter that imposes the censorship his argument proves our point even for this is precisely the kind of moving target to create a speech knowing no matter what he does next matter what he promises  the last thing to say is that the hardihood and that there is some type of home court advantage for states that somehow the due process clause based in the notion that states go beyond their borders and they commit wrong doing that they somehow get the benefit of litigating at home and that just analysis and tally of the contacts the nd holding there is when the defendant had lost and made debate on purpose all of the elements and they said ah there are these other constitutional reasons that you should shift the balance and put them on the scales and the