circuit court said look to for some guidance on this issue in the context of diversity jurisdiction and of the courts have noted the practical considerations of implementing the federal arbitration act if there are additional parties during an arbitration and other possibly involved in the lower court so we believe that the answer to both of these courts inquiries a new order yes arbitration would be handled there never had been an arbitration in scientology history none of l ron hubbard's writings use the word arbitration the the committee on ethics never used the term they never showed a justice chief would determine the manner of proceedings during the arbitration and that is a very clear demonstration not only that there were no rules or procedures in the ar tration agreement but furthermore it reflects the fundamental problem of getting a valid agreement from my clients as to the arbitration and ensuring some fairness and predictability review that finding yes we did in the opposition to the joint motion to arbitrate at page eight footnote three we had a discussion of florida law at the time we believe california law  testimony that we put on the international justice chief on that exact point and in the prior hearing the judge knowing that this issue had been raised had a lengthy colloquy with defense counsel where they c in their briefs before this court they simply say that we never raised it which is clearly going after moving out of the st amendment they've cited no cases that there's any limitation on the district court done under contract principles we've cited the shell case which specifically stated that this determination is based on principles they've cited no cases to the contour beyond that because the primary claims here involved claims of fraud significance but this court noted in the church scientology case that the state has a compelling interest in protecting church members from misrepresentations designed to obtain their money and that specifically applied to voluntary members and even if the money was used for legitimate purpose which we don't concede here of course also the u s supreme court board will supply despite them telling the court it would not we were not allowed to present witnesses even though they told the court we would and we were not allowed to originate all the evidence we presented to space representations and  that arbitrator said you know he according to your clients affidavit he said i know what's happening here there are a lot of suppressive persons out there trying to destroy our church one of those instead you all these a the arbitration that took place was not a quote resulting arbitration from the court's order compelling arbitration rather it was an arbitration on different issues raising different questions and different claims against additional parties over which the district court already had determined it lacked jurisdiction the supreme court's made plain that subsequent actions by a plaintiff can destroy this actually took place wasn't that case the arbitration the took place was the complaint against non diverse parties which the district court already found over which  if the plaintiff had brought those claims which he originally did before the district court the district court could not have had  drafters were concerned quote about encouraging plaintiffs to evade the jurisdictional requirements of the diversity statute but the simple expedient of naming initially only those defendants who has joined or satisfy the jurisdictional requirements and later adding claims not within the original federal jurisdiction against the defendant that's precisely describes what play to says attempted here garcia has been gays and blatant gamesmanship to expand the court's jurisdiction the proper question here must proceed from the recognition in numerous cases including moses cone environ that the f a a does not expand review an arbitration resulting from its order any other result would fly in the face of the core rule that the f a a does not confer general jurisdiction that is what happened here and i wanted you to address if you could for me the notion that the district court had which was that the concept of the religious arbitration will be would borrow from them as appropriate to follow through on this moreover under florida law quite simply what the agreement provided is what has been held to be sufficient under florida law the district these parties and that it provides some procedure by which the arbitration is to be affected well we we know how the arbitrators were supposed to be selected and and the agreement provided that the under florida law that is what is required doesn't require a great deal of detail as to what the procedures of the arbitration will be it requires that you know how the rubber i agree that florida law requires the form of procedure for arbitration i'm just concerned about where the th with the procedure is i mean the idea is so that the parties can know what the rules are going to be and everybody can be informed was that he had agreed with these principles at the time he entered into the agreements he had greed that he would be that it would be  that he would submit disputes with the church to a panel of scientologists in good standing he agreed to that he said he agreed with it at the time that's all that's required  opportunity to submit whatever evidence they wanted they were they did not submit evidence at all on their fraud claims they did not make any argument that any specific evidence and properly was excluded they left the arbitration early without submitting evidence they made no complaint the arbitrator's or the i j c that they were being treated arbitrarily or unfairly they didn't say why aren't you writing us submit this evidence because in fact they were asked to submit whatever evidence they want d in whatever form they left that decision addressed each of the claims they had made the decision found that they were not credible that they had made at their their claims they didn't even try to make out their claims quite frankly or honor and nevertheless the panel awarded them over eighteen thousand dollars contrary to the church not bound by article three limitations so unique you knew from the agreement that this was any dispute that your clients had with the church were to be  chief was supposed to sleep in the arbitrator that the parties are the arbitrator isn't that right i think that's more than was in the agreement i think it was there would be three arbitrators scientologists in good standing and we weren't even able to get through that portion there may have been those other provisions but it never got that far and  there were no rules on how it would be handled his his description of what happened in the arbitration is absolutely false we presented our evidence ninety percent of it was eliminated we complained they didn't care they now i've learned that if you're not a member in good standing you're a suppressive person and therefore there's some restrictions on communication and other things if that's part of the agreement then aren't you in essence agreeing to someone who has at least some  favor of the church well it's they claim that it would be impartial and they told the trial judge it would be impartial and that these people would overlook that spicer case a florida district court case where an employment situation the arbitration provisions set forth the arbitrators and says that the the procedures would simply be done under the ten fair treatment process which was the ever said that the party who holds the arbitration has free rein in tire proceedings and how they treat those people and i'm sure i'm way over my time out of the buy you want about way over your time you