i think we know the case ok and that's a good idea it seems to me that it is was judge bartol right when he said the crux of the dispute is whether there was a declaration of the cost of the platinum and whether a supplemental figure was paid and that can only be determined by looking at the montreal convention and definition of some words there prime aphasia and so forth that is his focus was on the interpretation of the contract and it was that that led him to make the forum not inconvenience analysis that he did that were focused on if i could proceed yeah that was why i was iraq well i think that judge the chief judge bartol abused his discretion in that in a sense he was blinded by some of the allegations that were set forth by the defendants in that saying we need to do all of these things in italy and that's where the contract was was entered into by the parties our position is that montreal it makes it very clear that the key document of these types of transport is the air way bill and that that is conclusive as to the responsibilities of the respective parties including the value of the cargo which is being shipped judge bartol concluded that there was a supplementary document which he referred to as a cargo receipt which is in fact the term of art which is mentioned within montreal this was not in our position is this was not a cargo receipt this this was a should matt saying i've delivered three point zero five zero million euros of platinum this was not an air cargo receipt it was not an airway bill and i think that the the terms of montreal make it specifically clear that those are the binding terms of the contract what would judge chief judge bartol determine was we need to take discovery as to what this document has we need to take the depositions of witnesses we need pursuant to wet the decision of this co we need to allow other parties to be joined in this case that point of fact is there was a subsequent action fi now by ship that in italy naming delta that that decision that litigation is pending there they name swiss port that's the defendants was port was an agent of delta in the united states that was the location where the cargo was determined to be missing that's a company that does business in delaware county pennsylvania that of this court the decisions in the united states to say whether there should be a true preference given to united states citizen who seeks redress within the united states court to wit delta versus should match the next question that one needs to pose and to determine as to the relevance and the responsibilities of the parties is maintained within that air cargo oversea well now i'm sorry if you go well the chief judge sirica asked you about pr what we call in the you know for two year on a refers to the cargo receipt which is what i write was a list of other those are the only two documents that are recognized by montreal their airway bill which which i don't believe should that's going to contest shows  higher value bill declared for the product or two supplementary payments for that the second aspect is a cargo receipt and our position is there is no cargo receipt pursuant to the terms of montreal the cargo receipt is prepared by the delta by the airline and it was never done it was prepared by the engines this bet and that's the only other document which does an article for to say it as an alternative any other means the preserve the record of kerry can be substituted for the airway bill it does say that but then going back to article eleven one when it talks about private basic evidence it mentions only the airway bill in the cargo received it doesn't mention any other evidence i think this is the second aspect an excellent job of valuating the case law and supplying when he determined to be the allegations and she met allegations which has never been proven and never can be proven because of the limitation on what we consider is a breach of contract for parole evidence shouldn't be provided except under very specific circumstances and i correct that if we have dr your view we pretty much decided the case yes or i think in looking at my notes what i now but if we think that there is if we don't think it is clear and if we think that the three million dollar euro or three million euro figure might be on a document that could be relevant then it seems to me that judge bartels analysis is essentially correct well it i farmland convenience if if i cannot answer your question this i think that the answer is if if we look at this forget whether it's montreal or warsaw are any other convention if we say this is a contract it's a very specific contract that's controlled by international law do we need to do anything other than to look at it and see if there were missions that qualify for the two things that future to marvel indicated one was there a greater value declared clearly the answer is no into was or supplementary payment plan paid for that and the answer to that is clearly no unless you have two of those together that i think anything else in who said what wh had said is totally irrelevant for purposes of interpreting this contract in terms of the montreal the platinum was transported from italy here as judge bart bartle said below the fact that it was stolen in this district really has no bearing on the analysis the key question really is can this case be decided on one document and under the montreal convention is it required that that's the only document that can be considered and i think on both those issues the answer's no first the montreal convention is quite clear but still under the montreal convention you can bring in other issues but let's let's take a step back let's look just at the way by the way bill argument that delta makes is that no value was declared because there's a notation on the way bill that says in the bid that's probably a pretty fair assumption but to actually prove that that means no value was declared you're going to need witnesses to say that's what it means lower down on the way bill it said the valve valve app again i can't testify to what that means but an educated guess is that someone speaking italian is going to testify that meant that the cargo was valuable and so right off the bat just on the face of this document you see that it's not that clear exactly what was going on further complicating the analysis is that key met will say he didn't fill this document out felt that and so there's an argument about how was the document prepared what was actually said to the person preparing the document all of that is relevant information take another step about the cargo oversee that is given equal weight to the way bill under the montreal convention and that clearly does say three million euro so you have those two issues and you have what the witnesses will say all of whom are undeniably in italy what about what about the argument that the cargo receipt is not really a cargo risk well even then i mean i think it is a cargo overseas but even then you're going to you're going to need witnesses to say here is how the car goes receipt was prepared what mr stroud says it's not really a cargo receipt because it wasn't between delta and team and it was between key met and it's intermediary there's nothing the record that says that and as a matter of proof a trial came out is going to say here's how it was the cargo receipt was prepared or been tend to spend its agent will say that or some other party will say that below we indicated to court that this is a shipment that went through five different four or five different parties hands before it ended up in the united states and the trial is going to be somewhat complicated as shipment trials go because each stage they're going to say here is what i told the person when i handed it off to and then the ultimate issue obviously will be what was felt as agent told in italy and how was how were the forms filled out but the question is is the way bill itself dispositive such that if there were witnesses who were going to say well you know the way bill was inaccurate or i told the guy filling out the way bill it's three million dollars does that not count at all  evidence so a cargo receipt or some other document that indicated the declaration of value such that delta knew that they had basically four million dollars of platinum aboard it is relevant to the consideration and then once you're at that step there's no doubt that the court below got this right because they went through the analysis there's really nothing that has this case there's a seer other than the fact that delta would prefer to be here and on that issue judge below gave them substantial deference to their home forum and one of the arguments that delta makes is that the judge below did not do that properly but the fact is that  below we argued that because this is not dealt as state of incorporation or their principal place of business it should get no deference and the court below said no no going to rule against you on that in favor of delta and they pretty deference everywhere in the united states and so when you go through the analysis there's no dispute that italy is an appropriate alternative for on the issue about whether delta's choice of form was given substantial deference it clearly was because judge bar of rejected our argument to the contrary and then when you weigh the private and public factors all of them favor italy because there's absolutely nothing here that i'm so what did you mean by when you said he rejected your argument to the contrary about the choice of form your argument we argue below that this was not dealt as home forum because the principal place of business is not in the eastern district of pennsylvania it's in georgia and their state of incorporation is in delaware and and he said their home form is the united states and so the lead argument that delta makes in their briefs is that he didn't you know he parroted the standard of deference to a home forum and i'm just saying quite the  contrary there was room we thought for him to say you don't even get deference because it's not your home and he rejected that and he gave them the utmost consideration for their choice of forum but then when he weighed that against everything else he concluded that  the burden on chemo that was was so extreme that they should be transferred to italy who are the other parties that will figure in this litigation in italy in the united states and of the facts each one of those representatives and maybe there's more than one might say well here's what was told to me about what the cargo was and here is what i communicated to the other person and the most important in that chain  and dealt which i understand are agents of one another and so all of those different players are going to are going to be witnesses at a trial on top of which in italy there is pending litigation key mat against delta and against swiss port and then there's another litigation actually in italy involving lloyds which was a carrier for us we should that be something we consider i mean if the if these issues are right to pick a forum but in the totality considering that the the fact that all the witnesses are there and all the documents are there and there's another case going off and if this case went on here you would have basically a trial by transcript because none of the witnesses would come here and you would have a burden on a company like you met that has no operations outside of italy i've been a litigator to confidence as opposed to the burden on delta which after all is an erik air carrier that has a significant presence in italy when you take all those things together it seems that this was a case built for for well if you are the issues in this case being touched on in the italian litigation ok knowledge certainly because the main issue is was was carriage was value declared is there a limit on liability and so that's that's frankly be the only issue in the case against delta and swiss board pending in italy is you know who's who's responsible for this one million dollars of platinum that turned up missing if that what i was it when i was reading this i couldn't figure out how big a we've got so it's not that large it's for it's quite small one hundred eleven point five kilograms gross weight well if they kept teaching metric system in school i would know  i think to answer your last question first i think these this was platinum powder is used in the jewelry business i'm not sure how you go from what i understand is a platinum level to but power but it's a one of the montreal i think it makes it very clear that the responsibility of seeing that the airway bill is correctly filled out is the responsibility of the consigner which in this case is  delta against damage suffered by it or by another to whom the carriers libel that result from irregularity in correctness or incompleteness of information provided by the consigner or on its behalf spat which is the agent ocean that is not an agent so i think it's clear on that to the extent that she met is arguing that the airway bill was inconsistent with what they wanted it to have said that's i think it is is accurate offer although perhaps not in some of the papers that written brief that litigation was filed after we initiated our case it was stayed and is presently stayed pending what's going to happen by this going to say that should we be affected all because nothing's happened in that particular didn't happen it's not as if we say well why should we start afresh in the eastern district when they've already done all it well that's right no gap is jewish and no nothing other than initiation of it and and it indicates in that that it's a quick amounts of money must be paid in order to allow shipment in excess of one hundred thousand united states dollars early in excess of that there's no indication on the