court is without power to extend that authority beyond the scope granted by the statute, and no District of Columbia court has ever found service upon such an unauthorized official to be valid against a foreign corporation. Accordingly, we conclude that service upon the Director was ineffective to bring Am-eritrade within the jurisdiction of the district court. Finally, Gorman urges that it would be unfair if a foreign corporation, lawfully subject to the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia because it does business here, could evade that jurisdiction by keeping its agents out of the District and hence beyond the range of effective service of process. If such a loophole does exist, the legislature can, of course, remove it by amending § 13-384 to provide an alternative method 1) (<HOLDING>); Oriental Trading Co. v. Firetti, 236 F.3d
holding that making phone calls and sending facsimiles into the forum may be sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction holding that purposeful availment may exist when a defendant makes phone calls and sends facsimiles into the forum state and such communications form the bases for the action of an intentional tort holding that the defendant companys action in sending a representative to ohio to negotiate a resolution of a prior dispute did not confer personal jurisdiction holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts