stating that i'm a citizen of the state of arizona repeatedly invoked reversed the jurisdiction to do this two hundred three hundred times a year typically get away with it and in fact put the defendant in a position which ties in with my particular case where as a defendant i can't get that misuse of federal jurisdiction address until i get to summary judgment until i get to trial until i  substantial amount of attorney's fees and those issues because the merits of his case are totally intertwined with his right to be in federal court in the first place and it's not just a matter of well there's one court is another  across the street this goes exactly to congressional intent in acting this particular title of this statute when they got to title three congress said the federal courts are too busy with too many other matters to be spending their time acting as building inspectors acting with respect to minor personal injury type damage claims basically enforcing issues that are on and that's that's the point of the vexatious this judge refused to talk about it it was true in my case my point and i understand you know i'm swimming upstream in this circuit on my right issue which is jurisdiction to award attorney i brought the court's attention to a decision and you know all we ever want to be is right tell us what's right and why what's right yes i think that's what i think you are getting while yes i think that because the circuits are going in different directions because jurisdiction across different circuits shouldn't be different i think the court really needs to pull back you look at the opinion of the coming out of the seventh circuit  and there was still the same problem we had complained about you know about the lack of designated parking or or around a place to get out of the van i thought going forward when when the judge made his dismissal in fact the case was reviled and stay courtly to resolve but the judge made a finding that there was no intent when mr morsi filed a complaint to return to the location despite the fact that he invented on two occasions during litigation and three times after the record have been closed and i would submit that prior case law the ninth circuit is very clear that where there is no subject matter jurisdiction there is no the big hurdle for the senate appellate is to show that there is an abuse of discretion that it seems to me that the appellant has to show some way that the district court judge wanted to impose either attorneys fees or cost against the plaintiff and was felt constrained by this argument about jurisdiction and effect the record is pretty clear that there was no went intent to buy this court's part to give a dime to the parents and that's shown by it i'm kind of bothered by some of the argument that appellate makes in that they're demanding now that this court send the case back to the judge to explain why he didn't give attorneys fees to the palace and that's to me that's  that's specks of arrogance of what they need to do with the penalty to do is to come to this court explain what the judge did wrong why he was wrong and what he did and they haven't done that there's nothing in the record to show what the judge did wrong and in fact they have an