svanos,



I still have yet to read any of Cornforth's materials, so I do not know precisely what his methods are, although from what I have read of others who speak of him, his methods seem to be grounded in law, which is a good thing. However, what you say in your last paragraph regarding 'minimum contacts' is a purely jurisdictional issue. The corporate charter is irrelevant b/c usually a corporation is chartered in only one state. That charter does not limit where they can conduct business; that is simply where their headquarters are located and shows the state which gave them a license to exist and the laws they are created under.



Regarding mimimum contacts, that refers to where THEY can be sued, not where they can sue you. If they do business with you in your state, the jurisdictional issue is about YOU (& the subject matter, but that is not an issue in your post), not the corporation. This same reasoning applies to why a foreigner, say from Japan, can sue someone in a US Court, when they were here for one single business deal. Wouldn't that suck if the you were the person from Japan who can't sue b/c you were there for only one day and made one sale and got screwed b/c of fraud by the defendant? Then where is your remedy?!?! That would be a license to screw over persons who do not normally do business in that area. So, to make a long story short, a corporation does not need minimum contacts to sue you, but it does matter on where they can be sued.



But, if that corporation does consistent business in that state, they better have a license to do business there, otherwise they will have no standing b/c the state is not getting their cut by taxing the corporation.



A corporation can sue in Federal Court primarily only if there is a Federal Issue involved or if the claim is over $75,000 and the parties are from different states. That is another discussion.



Pay closer attention to what Cornforth said about this matter. You may have misunderstood what he actually said.



-squirrels