facts that were before the trial court i think that jurisdiction wise under any of these theories for example the transaction of business and whether or not it related to the issue before  who was located in illinois for at least a part of his employment actually perform services in the state of illinois and there is no notion of retaliatory just charge it is essentially the employment contract between the decision to fire the plaintiff what the trial court found was wherever the decision maker is located this route for a curve and i think the argument is it's not only the decision to on point with these kinds of fact patterns on the other thing is in terms of specific jurisdiction was there a making or performance of any contract within the city of illinois or did it have  substantial connection to the state of illinois certainly at least a portion of the contract the employment contract was performed in the state of illinois because the plaintiff went to these three races every year that he was employed that they employed my client in the state of illinois and that he actually got his assignments from the defendant while he was in the state of illinois is enough to support jurisdiction in the state i would say the other things that you have to look at are who initiated the contact that was the defend the act where a contract was entered into that was a difference of opinion and where the performance of the contract that statute provides that a court me also exercised jurisdiction on any basis as long as it's permitted by the illinois constitution and the constitution states and with regard to that the courts i think there's no question that there are at least sufficient minimal contact between this defendant and the state of illinois such that if it's not reached it does not offend traditional notions of their way to say you should defend the state of illinois they reached out to a citizen of the state of illinois and they performed at least part of that employment contract in the state of illinois and when they finally contacted so certainly that's a fact that was disputed i think there were a couple of other things my client said for example they have to he during the employment maintained repaired and stored equipment belonging to the  of things but one thing i think they said that you know whether he was employed and he was located in illinois the kind of boy anywhere so there were some facts that were in this view i'm not a great deal be honest so i think that when you look at the overall picture here well what about actual probation furch dispute i don't believe there were i mean i think i think everybody agrees here is that the employer was in another state eight when they made this decision and that my client was in illinois and he was called from the other state and said you're terminated now i don't believe those facts are at all in dispute i think what the defendant was saying is all we didn't know where he was when we called him could have been anywhere and so purposes of this statue but they're looking at is where were they located and where they knew where the particular facts before the trial court and before this court applying any one of the three theories of jurisdiction this court can certainly overturn the trial court that's what we're asking and that this case be remanded for further proceed you know really when you look at that case law that talks about tortious acts most of them have to do with for example on somebody put a product that was bad in the stream of a business and the product ended up here and sanct in the case of retaliatory discharge the discharge takes place where that person was located the way i look at it this is really difference between this person picking up the phone and calling the plaintiff and saying you're terminated versus sending him a letter the retaliation and does not take place until they have communicated to the employee you are fired and so i think that that's what we're talking about  your last question the court did the explanations for why the decision was made an explanation similar to what counsel stated to you that the judge determined that decision where the true and the point that i made to the judge is that it's a bit of an unusual case here because we have a lawyer who doesn't work in a fixed location this employee moves about the country for ten months out of the year in his different places at different times in this circumstance the employee was more or less laid off it was a down period there was no drag racing taking place entry time so he's at home and his residence or yes it was he was a home during this time period well my argument was that yes you know the employer can make the decision the lawyer can decide well he's not going to have a job and will communicate first answer is that the tort occurs when i believe toward occurs when the situation is made for him to be terminated although in a sense the retaliation to tell a story just church claim doesn't discharge yes but i think we're talking here more about the timing of the band rather than the flow haitian the point is it doesn't make any difference where he was when he got the news maybe that was the time that the terminations took place but it doesn't establish the location where the terminations took place and i think an important consideration here is that when you're employer picks up the phone an employer decides in mid sentence can't do this can't terminate that person there's no tort there's no retaliation nothing to place nothing's happened that's right so then you say ok but he picks up the phone and place and it may be difficult to do that and maybe difficult to say ok we are physically located on this planet is that decision to take place is that court but we can determine it's going back to justice turner's point though it seems that we're talking about this mobile society where the person doing the firing person being fired could be any number of ever well that's a good question if you're saying that the defendant is agent of the corporation used to doing something or the corporation and some injury or damage arises out of discharge itself in this case is not related to the dependent the defendant being in illinois the alleged wrongful discharge is related to an alleged accident in the that he has an injury in that that time is not yet may become crucial if you find that this court has jurisdiction over the case when we get to our issues the other issues but the point is the  retaliatory discharge or the allegations of retaliatory discharge do not arise out of any of defendant's activities in illinois so this doesn't have anything to do with any racism will county or any r and then i'll wrap it up this isn't a case where there isn't an equally identifiable jurisdiction where this case but this is not a case where it ended somehow trying to  issue at all california has general jurisdiction over we'll see that there's no there's no question and this issue about you would ask previously about whether there were any factual differences i don't think there are any real factual difference kinds of circumstances associated with the parties perforce should look to simply words that are printed reside and that would be the basis of jurisdiction as opposed to suit right but the plaintiff tired out of a company that he knew was it just in this case it's even if he states that he thought he was hired in illinois he knew for a fact that the office of california because he flew out mean i think that there may be cases that say where the loss hurt is where the port took place but in all of these instances involving jurisdiction the constitutional due process protections illinois you know rose out of the company's business in illinois yes absolutely i don't know out about that so are you saying because the injury was in nevada you will know isn't the right place because the injury was in  that's the employee logical conclusion let's say that dunn proved alm the decision maker decided to take some grand tour around the united states but he didn't like killing so he toured all four states but illinois and let's assume in any one of those states he would have made this whole what the defended saying his jurisdiction would lie in each of those forty nine states but not illinois which frankly makes no sense he would also say for and that's charity or florida or california because the decision apparently was made in california by some decision maker and communicated by the manager with florida sure i think you don't have to get these kinds of torture analysis though because i think the catch all provision under the long arm statute takes care of all of this the reason i say that is because in constraining that statute what the appellate courts have said is you look at the minimum what if mr bell happened to be in india and if so where would the jurisdiction of them lie for this last i think you could still find jurisdiction here in illinois because the minimum contact let's assume for the moment that depends on where very sick people are at the guess i could have flown to california and filed suit there i think that the real inquiry here is you know employment by very nature is a contract and so this contract is situated in the state of illinois at least part of it was carried out here you know the defendant here reached out to my wife there's no dispute that they actually called my client to initiate this whole point relationship and at least part of it  so important as where this contract was being carried out and where it was terminated and illinois employment contract has been terminated those were i'm saying assuming i don't buy that but i'm just concerned with the location  determining factor or should be considered by this court just because the defendant hired an illinois president they knew he was located here it should have come as no surprise to the defendant that they are being asked to defend when they have terminated this illinois at all i think the problem is you know before when we were less mobile you would have a lot of issues coming up because people you know there would be multiple places that people could take information and what that's what we have the