do you know why nail and i case where somebody did not go into a jurisdiction when they claimed that they were not properly served one burden steen their right to dismiss the canadian decision if you look it does not address jurisdiction over the over the plaintiffs here in the  good you don't make the determination as to jurisdiction because there is no issue of jurisdiction before he would be a point and that's we have here let me then let's go back to justice i've gordon's question which is why did they do it right and then and frankly that is if you know that might have been important for the trial court to have considered very respectfully i don't think so because then what was she would be doing is going behind the word of the canadian who says that's the proof while under kellerman the court can make an independent determination jurisdiction as well but since the sake of argument no let's let's think let's say for the sake of argument the trial judge says from what i read canada and let's go back and forth let's go back look what we hear we have a country written in illinois which by its terms is a political and i want to point subject to the law the only courts there is no dispute and it is the defendant who bears the burden at least initially of proving jurisdiction you have american citizens and everybody acknowledges don't go up to canada to do anything you have a dispute it is focus exclusively in cook county areas no component in canada whatsoever the only link in canada wall is an action filed by a canadian citizen seeking to attack what's going on in illinois or to bar somebody from doing is the situation before the trout or which she had as a matter of law and so can you you look at the undisputed fact you're saying is there was there any jurisdiction in hand of because the defendant is affirmative the same i don't want you to find that there was jurisdiction and under six nineteen there are receding here there are additional factors in coloring that they can handle this ice comedy the relative burden let's say the trial i think the search let's say the canadian court was wrong in its determination that service was had implicitly th dealing with a foreign judge there is no presumption that we automatically give comedy to it if you know otherwise somebody to give a judgment anywhere in the world it isn't just any for firmly say judge the canadian court has exercised jurisdiction and continues to exercise its jurisdiction over this dispute they never exercised jurisdiction over this dispute which is a breach of contract issue in when there's so many people here that are involved in illinois and you're you're attacking it based on jurisdictional grounds with snarly donnish you go into canada under all of these treaties you know with those issues it is is you have to look at the treaties between the united states again i could be polite so you're right but frankly judge but i respect you enough i've argued before you before let me  contest because it doesn't purport to do anything other than bar them from doing certain things in canada the canadian judge doesn't bar them from him filing suit down here the canadian border doesn't address are seeking a certain relief and that relief wasn't addressed in the canadian court yes or and therefore the relief that you're seeking in this in illinois should be addressed by the oic or because it's never been absolutely so if you look at the complaint we don't have to vacate anything in canada we don't attack the canadian jurisdiction we don't nitpick the order it's what happened to that that there was canadian court the only order in this record which is interesting because to effectuate under canadian law they have to serve my clients with and there's no evidence as we point out that they ever the judge said i want my order served on the no in fact there were a  they're trying to attack the relief that may be granted or on the further be granted in the canadian court and so that to that extent the issues do overlap indeed as i think was  hey didn't like having to defend an action that was previously filed in canada and so they filed another action some five or six weeks later here in cook county and began to try to prosecute the issues anew and afresh also not permitted under places it didn't have to do that now it's also represented that service of the judgement has never been proven well i am not sure what we needed to prove i am aware that the judgement was in fact sent to each one of the d you know and in conformity with the hague convention that you have to use the same processes that we have here so you would have to get leave to do that you could just duck appoint the special process server and sought in reference specifically in the statement of claim i believe there's two hundred thousand dollars in punitive damages also sought in connection with that plane also previously indicated in in opening remarks that this was a inaction  there is a choice of law but there's no venue provision there's no requirement that any action be specifically brought here in cook county illinois or anywhere on illinois or anywhere in the states for that matter for the purchaser all notices incident to this transaction would be sent to you john as in nigeria or canada so the idea that this was somehow negotiated signed up everything done here in illinois also just not was all just illinois by parties or negotiations or certainly execution respect and so in an effort to to create their own forum here they filed this action actually excuse me it was nothing more than a form shopping play also is noted by the trial court and of course because of all that the filing of this six when i need three there seems to be a lot of movement in terms of what the burden ends of course we have a bird it's our motion in demonstrating that the factors are matt and a reason for dismissal but that at this stage and with this motion and in the trial where it was never our burden to prove service service was demonstrated by the action of the canadian or jurisdiction it was demonstrated by the actions of the canadian border that was never one of the factors that he defendants here had approved in connection with it to six when i need three motion so some of what we've been requested to to prove are required to prove we're just not that the order was in fact served also not required to prove i find it curious however that with the opportunity to actually make those arguments it's need evidence that we have affidavit in response to the motion now one point that one of the four players submitted an affidavi issue is something is that this court has already acknowledged to be taken up in the anterior court contesting service of process moving to wash service contesting the jurisdiction of first instance or he also had the opportunity to to contest jurisdiction lateral collaterally attack the judgment entered against him not in an action filed here between the same parties essentially with the sit based on the same transaction asset purchases remaining fortune of the provisions relate to the same that's not the form for it either if in fact in if and when the judgment is or any judgment and heard by the interior court is entered it or domesticated here in cook county for purposes of enforcing the up and i know the difference ok go ahead so we have an inherently defective judgment based on its own terms you were ten well he admitted we haven't followed up on their injunction and there's going to be a  binds the parties here it was to her i think that i think that this whole idea of service and enforcement of the judgment is really a blind alley this case is not a power and force one of judgments this case is about order to show that they would have had to show that the actual order was served was but there's up look at the record look at the order the order doesn't say is it coming before drugs  started somewhere else whether or not it was abandoned until there's a consequence that the illinois residents have to suffer and that that suffer that that consequence doesn't arise say i haven't seen a case that says that you can defeat a two six nineteen eighty three motion for another case pending by showing that the other court does not have jurisdiction and in my mind  proceeding is yes we did lose something what they did is they if they come in and affirmatively raise an issue or they have to establish basic jurisdiction to raise everybody agrees on what they've and it is you're not going to find a case if you do then my research is poor counsel research is not a single case is ever addressed this procedure that they raise their the moving party everyone agrees that in order to establish that it's a bar you have to come in with basic jurisdictional issues about simply there is a judgment because then there is no burden at all you can have a judgment entered by a court they did it by e mail out of the north pole and they issues it's very respectfully does i know you disagree but then you have if you're going to put it if the court is going to affirm i would guess that the opinion point out that these claims would not be foreclosed if they try to enforce that as a counterpoint and of course it puts them in a position of saying now because we go off the record there's all kinds of interesting consequences when they're trying to do is get something to bar these hundred claims under the theory that we never have to come in to enforce them if i can i can assure you that based on what i write judge duncan pryce never ruled those that i understand thank the court for its time this morning and i think the court for getting grilled sometimes is informative weeks of brain cells thank you very much well i want to tell you that the arguments were wonderful like you might say and the briefs were very well done and that you gave us a very interesting issue and we will take the case under advice i will tell my associate to the