or new you have seen this so many times and there is so much wall so much ink spilled about this i find myself struggling to tell you anything you don't know or to offer  there are certain turnstiles if you will to to getting into the game that is the final analysis to balancing the public right and i am going to rehearse for you they're all familiar making about them is they seem to get short shrift let me just begin with the observation that when the word that is the trial court hears one of our motions the judges kno hearing his same robe but the weird or she wears when hearing more cases that is to say this is this is an instance where the trial judge has the wig on because is it he she is sitting in equity and the action is being taken this is not the result of a legal attack on my being in madison county it's an equitable one and so when one thinks of the days it's been a long time before i wanted the work combined i just wish to point out for the court that the that that underscores how the elephant in the room that the cases don't address it's the elephant in the room good that really this this analysis doesn't address really i'm just trying to be candid with the poor that  it doesn't it doesn't take much imagination remember the good the same defending him was held in due course in his own county and suffered on the same theory professional negligence of bad thirty and felt it was totally inappropriate indeed the underlying case there was talked about and testified in effect on the bell ground that you must by virtue of our supreme court work on work to meet the supreme court has told you how to analyze these cases and the cases already analyze in a because hopefully the lawyers are doing it less and less doesn't mean that this is the basis of what your love comedian says that may have been the start of it may have been the reason i mean if you don't believe in that doctrine that's one thing but we are as we are faced with a six page single spaced order which talks about all that there's where we are should we look to say the church was right or the judge is wrong then we counter what your moment said about venue that's how i started then right not surprising i'm here to defend judgement just order i think it's great just it's a lot longer than most orders you see it six pages as you said single spaces it doesn't miss a beat every single factor is considered with all the happenings in the record and it's it's a great there's nothing wrong with that forum shopping is brought up and i i look forward chopping a little differently than you know it is i don't think it's unseemly the ethical obligation to do your best for perception is you're going to get a lot better verdict or the value of the case is worth a lot more to the settlement because of perceptions among insurance adjusters which there are and defense counsel which there are  hughes's jury verdict data to evaluate cases so you know i i don't i don't i'm hoping this court doesn't use the term form shopping has a an awfully busy docket looking at these foreign cases and maybe one reason why is that the test that has been handed down  doesn't look directly at what's happening which is which is seeking you know some kind of preferential venue for the case whether it's the plaintiff or the defendant and  instead what you have is a is a test is being terribly subjective i mean you've got you've got public factors you've got private factors you've got a preference or a heavy finger on one side of the scales of justice in favor of the chosen venue and i'll address your venue question if you have a judge with respect to how much deference was given but you know without a sense of humor is the most important factor and it's worth three times as much as on the other factor you know real people leaving these decisions get really a cloudy  know what's going on here i mean it's almost as if maybe for shopping he's on everybody's mind in the when they write their briefs and when they write their opinions when it doesn't come through a gain to my lights it's foreign stopping is the issue let's just confront it head on and say these are for stopping cases and when does equity compel us to move the case or we're not the counsel cases that's how i see it joe may well i guess i'm not ready to concede that you've heard that counsel is going to admit liability but you know it's to prove the element upright i have to prove the underlying case of course but that's just one consideration i'm on more than seven and there's no wall that i've seen that says hey you got to you're going to place this particular factory ahead of all the others there for that matter aside from what judge case was talking about there's really no good law that says you know we're going through a sin but it should only break  i've asked here alluded to a chord pain particular attention to the real it what i've described is the real issue which is form shopping now within the confines of the directions from the supreme court i think you can as it were inserted bad a deeper analysis about from shopping right at the moment of one of those turnstiles and the turnstile that i respectfully would like the court to suggest that the trial order exercises its substantial discretion only in here's the word exceptional in exceptional circumstances only as i think of where you where one can begin to plant a seed of a test that directly addresses what the if i'm right the test should dowdy they just don't get attention in the test i mean you know really is the word forum shopping in the seven part analysis is that a private factors or public factor you know it kind of point to the issue of forum shopping i mean should we impose the burden on madison county because it is a mess in town where yes yes you know it's news making decisions about clients in madison