service. But we are not at all certain that legislative action is required. Section 29 — 101.99(e)(2) of the D.C.Code, cited by neither party, provides that “[w]henever any foreign corporation does not have an agent for service of process ... the Mayor shall be the agent for service of process for the corporation.” Although on its face this section appears to close the loophole identified by Gorman, we need not determine whether service upon the Mayor would have been sufficient to bring Ameritrade within the jurisdiction of the district court because Gorman never attempted to make such service. IV Ameritrade is quite wrong in treating “cyberspace” as if it were a kingdom floating in the mysterious ether, immune from the jurisdiction of earthly courts. Never 3d 883, 892 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Neal v. Janssen, 270 F.3d 328, 332 (6th
holding exchange of information unnecessary due to changes in the agencys requirements and passage of time holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that defendants act of threatening bank customers who otherwise simply watched defendants rob the bank constituted aggravated menacing rather than robbery holding that in a military criminal trial the governments use of classified information without permitting the defendant or his lawyers to view the information did not violate the defendants due process rights holding that a defendants contact with michigan customers through the mail and the wires where it constitute the doing of business there rather than simply the exchange of information rendered the assertion of specific jurisdiction consistent with due process