With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". been foreseeable — indeed, the subjective component of the deliberate-indifference standard requires that the defendant “knew [the plaintiff] faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk.” Callahan v. Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155, 1159 (10th Cir.2006) (internal quotation omitted); see also Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1230-31 (10th Cir. 2006) (discussing objective and subjective components of deliberate-indifference inquiry clarified in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). But that is not to say that Lap-pin’s liability is based on the mere foreseeability of harm; it is based, rather, on his allegedly active and direct role in denying medical treatment in the forum state that could have prevented the harm. See Dud-nikov, 514 F.3d at 1077 (<HOLDING>). 3. Official actions as basis for

A: holding trierweilers mere foreseeability principle inapplicable where plaintiff alleged defendants here more than foresaw or knew the harm alleged to have befallen forum residents they undertook intentional actions that were expressly aimed at that forum state  with such foresight or knowledge
B: recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties
C: holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction
D: 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
A.