not in the record below sadly i have to confess that he is right i checked it and i apologize for that and agree with him that they should not be considered all right very fine beyond that however i think that  least two cases that were cited below and judge england himself cited to scam and case in his opinion and i believe you'll find that it page two twenty four if i remember correctly of the transcript or excerpts if you will and any of them he found that there was something matter jurisdiction and cited that case of subject matter i'm sorry subject matter jurisdiction in federal district courts to decide disputes between the signatories to the compact i e the state and the tribe the question that that we're trying to get at with you is a different question and  is do we have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim by a third party who is not a direct party to the conflict i believe we are doing scanlon is one such authority for that and then on page one what was the facts in that case does that case support your entitlement to bring a claim on behalf of an individual well because of the change very clearly stated that the everything involving the casinos the gehman operation fell  at page one twenty seven of the letter i don't think yours or your you still haven't answered the question that i think that case is distinguishable because it involved a dispute between the parties to the compact the state of california and the corps on band of indians over whether or not they had to collect and remit certain horse racing fees because they were running off track betting at their casino yet you are in a different ustors and insurance companies and attorneys that you're sure it's biased awful no but it certainly gives the plane for a reasonable basis to believe there's insurance however if there is no insurance then the waiver of no help to the plaintiffs because it's only to the extent of the insurance coverage and that's what the complex says and section ten point two d i believe it is why wouldn't the claimant be able to file a cla against the tribe directly other words with the tri boy much as much as you would file a claim against the city or county for injuries sustained on county or city if your honour's would be willing to read the first twenty five paragraphs of the complaint of second a many complaint and in particular paragraphs nine through fifteen that appear pages fifteen through twenty five of the excerpt you will see the tremendous effort that  tribe which is what you're alleging and i did read your second amended complaint i see what you're alleging but that doesn't answer my concern which is where is the power or in federal district courts to take cognizance of a claim by an individual who is seeking what i view to be third party beneficiary rights under the compact which is that's a good one points out is our rights that are in coate at this point well  twenty seven of that excerpt and that opposition cites some other things a great western casinos that was an individual against the casinos and involved claim for breach contract fraud breach you finish your good and conversion all ports similarly was a tort cause of action for sexual harassment by a former employee who brought that action in that neither of those cases was between the state and the casino and was it with jurisdiction question in this case with anybody raising cases were cited because the courts found years diction to exist subject matter jurisdiction to exist and that was not required to go back to the tribal court that was after acquired or after established so anyway they allowed the plaintiff in that case to continue and the district court did not make him go back to the  court and we have a similar result in great western because the knows as well so i don't think that's a determining factor that we have them to be a third party suing the casino as opposed to state versus casino where parties to the compact to look at those cases ok none of those cases by the way are neither of those cases that you cited involve state versus just saying ok those cases where were found to be appropriate and have i run out of my time you know you've got of minutes left would you like to reserve or i'll reserve earn a minute although i have a lot more to say well we'd love to hear you but we have lots of other people who want to talk to us to get my stuff out  our position is that he relates to gaming disputes in federal criminal prosecutions and i think the court is correct in identifying this as a slip and fall case and garden variety involving a dispute between the state and the casino and and therefore involving a first party claim under a compact the other case decided by counsel an argument the crumple in great western casino cases are exhaustion case and exhaustion is not at issue here exhaustion would only be a political in cases of concurrent jurisdiction where the both the federal court and the tribal court have jurisdiction over a matter of tribal jurisdiction isn't even at issue in this case no claim is even been brought in a tribal court but because there is no federal jurisdiction under either federal question or diversity there is no federal jurisdiction and therefore no concurrent jurisdiction required to consume all of your time if you feel you've covered the key issue why well we would yes your honor thank you we would just also point out that the district court correctly determined that even  exhaustion that's calling something other than one it is because there's either jurisdiction or there's not yours diction and if there's jurisdiction two places it's do all that doesn't prevent there from a your stiction in the district court and i believe there is and furthermore i believe this case lies are not to be allowed to continue in the district court by reason the fact it was filed and district court before there was any tribal court and as far as we can tell and if you look at the exhibit a didn't come out when i packed address that situation i thought they said in the absence of the existence of a federal court you could simply bring your claim before the tribal council which would act as say otherwise and in fact if you look at twelve de twelve ten point two d if you will i don't think it lends itself to that interpretation at all and i respectfully suggest that might not be an accurate representation of the compact or thank you very much counsel your time has expired thank you the case just argued will be submitted for decision