standard is going to be what's more probably true than that and the the only twist the unique twist i guess a bit unique in this case is that the chinese companies thumbing their nose head our court system because they refused to that doesn't mean that they're thumbing their nose and that you can't ever get a judgment against them i can get a judgment against you on your honor that's claiming that we could have maybe i'm not making myself clear what i think i understand you believe you've time means that you can attempt to reinstate the complaint against family yes usa all right so we're not at the end of the rope here true you're not out of the box completely are left without any kind of remedy if you do more than simply provide a short deposition of an individual who has absolutely no personal knowledge of th that would allow jurisdiction under those but nobody ever really established anything about this but how do you know that they're not constantly shipping these things into the united states it wouldn't really show that at all all you that is that well they don't but that's really a conclusion and there's no competent evidence by anyone how do we know that they're not distributing these straps all over the place or in illinois i mean i do think there's a certain amount of evidence that you have to  searches and the secretary of state to determine if some corporation has a presence in you when a piece of paper a ask me a question well how do we know that they don't ship other products or use other distributors and that's in the state of illinois but we have based on the record in the court in the evidence that we do here that we would be able to get because there's no internet searches all the all the resources available travelers to see if they've ever been sued anywhere is it is that the record about you searching records him the secretary of state's office and is it in the affidavit it's an affidavit for me  what you've got other than basically say well wait meyer said this in the deposition and there's these affidavits other than they have i don't i don't really see that any of this establishes which you need to establish but the main thing i wanted to find out is whether or not you believe that you are not without a remedy price you pay any further ado with perhaps you know some limited the statute in the court clearly indicated to you that you had that opportunity and she said that she thought that there was something lacking here but i believe the statute allows for multiple attempts but i think that before the court is going to permit shown that there may not be jurisdiction but i don't think mr wade myers twelve minute deposition has to say and i don't think the affidavits of yourself this steinberg have shown that's all i am suggesting right now satisfy any judge it's like we are able to say all right i think i think there's also a disconnect there my understanding from reading the cases is that i'm able to satisfy the judgment has to do with where a company is bankrupt or nonexistent i think you change the the meaning of what case do you have that says unable to satisfy any elements but the case did not go into what the meaning of each of those provisions was i read it at and the cases that happened to report it to you are clear that your idea of what recall support the morning of the elevator this morning so i can communicate to this case here as well as any case in the state of illinois any case in this country is all about proof it's all about evidence distribution that's it he's reading paragraphs into these affidavits that aren't there it's similar to lack of any investigation it was taken to prove  you can follow motion to reconsider that the courts are very clear on that but it's evidence there's no cause of action that exists in this country where an attorney and provide his own  jurisdiction is that what the meaning of enforce a judgment or is the true meaning that you have to show that this you hon is either bankrupt insolvent or is no longer of company there's not a lot of cases the finding before a lot of this your stiction there are well maybe they have assets in the state on maybe they have assets stateside if there was an investigation undertaken by the appellant he could rule that out how much money does he have to spend to prove it's a million dollars at silver dollars that's what the wall would require at a minimum that the the plaintiff to have done in this case to prove these factors he could have done who we got the owners cell phone number from who's been doing business with this man in china for ten plus years inquiring into the business relationship between these two entities a subpoena duces asking for records that might information and the rod denying the trial for the ever gave the information and now he presents this in the record as some sort of proof that there's no contact with the former well that it do you agree that the stitching at least requires in any way one of the elements is that interpreted by other jurisdictions that have the exact same language that we happen here otherwise the only proof that we have is the attorney affidavit from baker mackenzie which standards set forth in a ten paragraph affidavit generally want out might be impossible in all likelihood you may doubt that's not expert opinion that's nonsense so i can't make up his mind but side the fence he wants to be at all likelihood ma and they got it from a trading company from china and the trading company got it from another company in china so my answer clean from the whole thing i mean i don't know about them there's public policy that's set forth it's twofold it supports the domestic distributor sports the point of as well but neither one is higher than the other and there's no cases i suggest that the injured plaintiff should have the benefit of the public policy as opposed to domestic cooperation it comes down to presenting to prove if you want take advantage of the statute which gamers a company who did not meet design or offer warnings for a product which is severe there's not much defense is that if you're going to hit me like that you better provide perth and there's not american company i mean the allegations in the trial court that we did business big bad china we did business with an american company and you're saying you didn't know it came from i certify the manufacture and  corporation in california it was information the plaintiff had at september first two thousand and eleven and he did nothing  the judgment or settle now there are other cases and there are other states that have the same language that we have no way of jersey his little more forward thinking language that probably would support  what you get here but in any event do you believe there's a threshold issue about this section picardy would not be able to satisfy just i don't know that those lawyers saying that you probably thing i understand your anger squash and here's my two fold answer number one i don't think any case anywhere is ever addressed a situation where you have a chinese company of the bowels of rural china and his nat responding to a court case in whatever state it is that her cases go and what no one's ever addressed a judge secondly it cannot be and this is i submit to the court it cannot be our lot in our state that we're going to tell an american worker well you can't you even though you can't force your judgment against said chinese company which i have a you can't enforce your judgement because the language of the sketches has uses the word satisfy your out of the backs sanest right but include getting the money right or it can't just be bankruptcy we have to look at the same there are there are a number is different than whether you can physically or legally enforced a judgment that satisfied we can never run track and where one by the way this case isn't worth millions of palace like he suggested or the quote i told me to go to china if my of distribution which is critical because we have to have some antics between the manufacturer in illinois and we've established