this extraordinary remedy the only supreme court and fast that for at the time that is relevant in this case and you probably hear me say it a dozen times or so and when you are when you and join a party from proceeding in a foreigner stiction it should be done so with great delicacy and with written straight they should only happen where the former proceeding result and fraud rolls wrong oppression or when in clear act when he is presented which requires you to provide a manifest robber injustice deepest simply has not met that's times it is not enough that there might be a difference of opinion between the court according to fact it is not enough that one theory might provide a little get a favorable resolution it's not enough that you have simultaneous  duplicative litigation it's not enough that one party might be inconvenienced it's not enough that one party might have to have more expense by going to the four intersection those are simply not reasons to join a party rather the chance against fraud gross fraud gross wrong impression then fast and justice it simply can't be that might it should there's a possibility the court has agreed that there will be and if you read through the marsh when he stuck it transcript where the parties were discussing this the transcript simply never made this meet this task first of all the parties have extensive ties to india they were born and raised in india they are part of the hindu faith they were married pursuant to arranged marriage in india under the hindu marriage act  build a fourteen thousand square foot for the murder of residents deep by an exhibit to work extensively with an architect in order to build this house deep also decided that she wanted to have another child which she could only do through in vitro fertilization and so she chose to go back to india in order to find an indian woman who had servants there get to use indian doctors and to go through the process there with their medical technology in india and so clearly that the court continued her at the parties continue to have strong ties to india for those reasons mortgage file in the i march fourteenth two thousand and nine no having deeper proceed india would be no injustice to her because she already extensively participated for two years he found them works fourteenth two thousand and  she attempted to evade service a process but eventually she was served she's participating there she's made numerous appearances and they're actually tempted to have the have more in just a titian business as i said before the public court denied her appeal the hi continuances clearly she is capable and able to participate in the india proceeding and turn the tyrant to action and they have been taken by certain absolutely and in this case that is what's happening obviously the party must someone decide credibility that's one way that the parties and go about doing that but also they are very much family structure and family oriented so for example richest father serving as his proxy deep eyes father is a serving as hers and so the is your core allows this to happen extensive negotiations to get a divorce by consent in india pursuant to the hindu marriage act so there was no question at that time that the parties are going to be suffering and were initially and clearly the parties were trying to do so under the hindu marriage act because injustice and the court found that it had not now to buy and her grief her flagship case that she's relying on is that is crime from the second district but the facts in crane are exceptionally different than the facts we have now and illinois and brings a motion for an injunction and the court upholds injunction that's not what happened in the in the instant case and the instant case there is one claim to one defined in each and l know each one in india one in illinois issues so i'm not going to stand up here and read from a script for you and i would like to address some of the questions because i think some of the questions go straight what some of the real problems are with this case first of all this case or in no determination of adultery none of those things all of those allegations are denied however the facts establishing gross wrong oppression injustice the feeding the laws of residence the parties residency threatening illinois jurisdiction not mere inconvenience but undue burden going beyond the usual the layout of of proper complete relief in india vs the ability to grant proper complete relief in illinois foreign laws contrary to illinois public policy all of these things are established by his own pleadings affidavits judicial admissions this is what the record establishes in this case so i think it's important to know that what we're starting out with is all everything established those are just allegations secondly you were told at the very beginning that the issues whether both cases should be allowed to proceed simultaneously if america if would like to see what is the opposite of what he would like to see the first very first thing he word and i'll tell you why you know a few minutes or maybe sooner than that while saying that people can't do the same here and i don't use the word prosecute here in illinois because it's not she's trying to do so is trying to bring  and it's important to note the context in which the injunction against mr murtha of proceeding in india was granted it wasn't willing milian wasn't out of context after the judge in this case the night the mo came all and the corps pretty even handedly just trying to be practical indicated well if i'm going to i'm happier phrasing but this is a fair interpretation of what happened if i'm going to stay deep from proceeding here  i'm going to stay i'm going to prevent this from urges from going ahead with his action in india but it would be fair we think about there to tie her hands prevent her from proceeding in illinois but then allow him to proceed with his in well if if you didn't have that we would have a problem if any said well we don't want this case we don't have this case then we wouldn't have to worry about the issue of enjoying the party from proceeding in form litigation presupposes that the for of litigation under all of the criteria that we can the still from the very from the fast pace the james case in the various cases following interpreted most cases so for example the point that was i was making was that there is no fair generally you see that there was a request to impound for passports there were there was a request to extradite her from the united states to india so that should be she could be prosecuted pursue  to require dba if she wants to properly defend herself in the in the action if you want if you wanted to dispute child custody on the merits if you want to dispute the proof the financial relief he's seeking in india on the merits does she divorce and other public policy reasons we have to keep in mind that these parties are indian citizens they were born in india myriad in india pursuant to the rationing pursuant to the hindu marriage act when they got married pursuant to the hindu here jack they agreed that this is where we're going to be bound by so not just a well and you have to come back and answer questions she knew all this she knew this when she got married she used when she usually action marital affair and frankly the criminal proceedings relate to the ng so she knew this when she married the second