the court may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant to the extent consistent with state law. See Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 445, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952). When these contacts are less substantial, the court may still exercise jurisdiction over the defendant on claims relating to his contacts with the forum state. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476-78,105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. In the latter case, the defendant must have purposefully directed his activities toward the forum state, the claim must have arisen out of these activities, and the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. Here Plaintiffs have not established the co (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, even taking the allegations in the
holding actual possession of or access to information by the irs is not an absolute bar to enforcement of a summons for that information holding appeal of termination is limited to information that is part of the record holding that even if information in an affidavit was provided in reckless disregard of the truth appropriate course of action is to sever that information from the affidavit and determine whether sufficient information remained in order for the magistrate to find probable cause holding that posting defamatory information on the internet is not sufficient to subject the poster to jurisdiction in each state in which the information is accessed holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties