moot because the district court did not have the power to divine divest this court of determining whether intervention should have occurred mor party who makes an appeal over which the court has no this court doesn't of yours diction thereby have the power to divest the district court o tacitly denied the motion to intervene with the october two thousand and sixteen order which and that order contain elements which perpetuate of the fraud second order in december of two thousand and sixteen which left the october order intact and also loads intact orders permitting  submitting fraudulent claims for the chinese fees to be paid from new york state and the time of the judges on the unemployment insurance appeals board was being diverted seeing from hearing current appeals which is their mandate from the united states department of labor to hearing these cases where we don't even know whether the claimants are still alive and if even if they are so in the seventy's and eighty's if they could conceivably prove that they were still that they were looking for work during the carter administration this court has held in both dry wall tapers and pointers and gone litigation that the best practice for record is to result in a motion to intervene that's pending before making a substantive ruling on the matters before the case before the court the reason for that is that there is now no way just in taking all whether there whether the intervenors input would have benefited the court or whether in fact the the failure to follow what we deem to be the better practice is the equivalent of denying the motion in drywall tape or some pointers the score reversed and remanded for a determination on the motion to intervene even though there had been a final judgment and hers and there was also a clearly appeal to resolve whether the district court should have to side of the motion to intervene because that's what the circuit court decided take it back decide it and then if you want if you lose come back and complain to us about that before without ruling on whether the intervenor had a right to be present in the room at the motion to intervene tonight in the district or haven't you recently exactly and and there's been a intervene was appropriately determined and if it was not appropriately determined in its reverse then you get back in the remedy and the question is what's the remedy that flows from that given the fact that you should have been  intervene so you could totally consistent with driving while it's not wholly consistent and drawn all there was no decision exactly what happened in your end right well there was no decision whatsoever here there's been just one word well your honor it just strikes that well that could happen but it strikes me that that would be an enormous waste of everyone's time this court's time and it when it has to happen in the interim is it allows the underlying fraud that we've been complaining about in farsi to continue for the while you aren't stuck with that is to write an exception excuse me you want to write an exception no we do not what we were asking you to do is find that there was a tacit denial rules on the substantive matter before it it without without making a decision on the motion to intervene that that there there is a right to appeal from that order and the legal principle on which we b do skiing us to rule your way and so i'm trying to understand which well but what the judge did was she ruled that there were going to be three phases of disengagement and she entered the first order there's never an opportunity to challenge the elements of the first order and to ella unless there is an appeal a direct appeal from the first order and that first order will issuing the orders in two thousand and sixteen in october and and december two thousand and sixteen whether and whether this court should reverse those orders and remain with a decision with a decision requiring a decision on the merits and we're also asking your honor there is also the erie county issue with respect to the public filings i mean we're asking and things which is exactly the core of erie county status reports on settlement or just engagements should be made public it's a public court are these issues such as they are they currently before the courts or that we have an appeal pending on them the issue with written both well both asking you to remand and require a decision on the merits of rule twenty four and issued the exact ruling that rolled sought to compel which is an order granting or denying the motion intervene we now have that order to the extent an appeal lies in this case rolls appeal is from that final order denying intervention none of these interlocutory orders that did not address much less decide intervention before this you know this court's precedents are clear that when an a receives the relief he seeks he can no longer maintain an appeal the appeal becomes moot and in general this court lacks jurisdiction even beyond the moon this issue that the orders appealed from his october and has found a constructive denial of intervention in a live case where the district court retain the ability to rule on a motion intervene and as in this case the district court actually did rule on that motion to intervene on appeal lies from that order and not the priorities that did not address much less rule on it and the reason for that is that the collateral order doctrine is itself an exception to the rule that you appeal final judgments and it's a narrow exception it's an exception that says when there are when there are issues that are conclusively determine that are separate from the merits that's an exception to the general rule that the party can't take immediate appeal or intervene or in this case  here there was no conclusive determination on the merits of a collateral issue and again we know that in part because now there has been a conclusive determination and any appeal will live there and the united states supreme court in stringfellow talks about the narrow construction of the stock and this is in the doctrine to be applied broadly when a party six intervention relief or is denied permissive intervention it's a doctrine that's applied strictly and in any event i'd like to address for a minute just the underlying merits of the motion intervened to the extent that there was a constructive denial in this case any such tonight i would be entirely appropriate ro has no cognizable interest in this litigation he's entitled to make whatever arguments he wants to make in the separate wrongful termination and he time case but nothing that happens in this case will bind him in that case or preclude him from making any arguments in that separate case and the idea if you can carry the separate status as a rule later as a representative of taxpayers with a government that the filing of a key ten case allows him to brandish that power and barge into another cases as a representative of those public interest finds no support in any case law and has no policy justification in addition the motion was was was vastly untimely roald knew about the bar see a litigation since two thousand and seven he filed his separate action in two thousand and eleven and he could have sought to intervene at any time then or thereafter instead he expressed the disclaimed that he wanted to intervene and waiting five years before bringing this case and to allow intervention now would greatly prejudice the parties you know would have greatly prejudiced the parties in winding down the consent decree to which ruled was really a third party no more than an interloper  to the extent that it is asserted the idea of getting involved to reduce payments of the consent decree that the state is adequately represented interest the state has always been involved in this case for many years and many judgments in one thousand nine hundred four and two thousand and four in two thousand and seven attempting to reduce its obligations under the current decree and now essentially have been able to wound that down and the district court here rog never filed a petition for m s in this case so he further petition for a mandamus in the separate case seeking to compel a ruling on the motion to dismiss but if there was an issue here about timing the appropriate path would have been to pursue a petition for mandamus in this case which was never pursued but as it is the district court did not abuse its discretion in handling the true related cases in focusing and winding down the consent decree in one case and focusing in supervising settlement negotiations in the other case dis why discretion in terms of handling its docket and the timing of its rulings and the recent floyd decision is one other case were where a court has appropriately held off on ruling on a motion intervene until issuing a final judgment then ruling concurrently in that case if this court has no further questions we would submit based on a recent ask the court to dismiss the appeal thank you mother jurisdictional questions dealing with whether the notice of appeal itself was even adequate on the original orders those orders have absolutely nothing to do with the usual as that is rolled has raised rather they are winding down orders that deal strictly with ending a thirty four year old case which judge ran as you had ruled upon back in two thousand and four includes that it sure of the two of the major were actually warned on this case what you're doing is annoying in the case and restarting it again where mr rolled gets a seat at the table and gets access to documents that he could use in his separate case where he is can fully litigate a case should she choose to do so the practical aspects of where this all goes alternatively it's time to put an end to this and if the court believes that there is some merit to the idea that there was some kind of denial of intervention by the entrance of those two orders on all means take a look at the underlying case we should look fully briefed by us and by the state at least on whether intervention should be granted or to now have a situation where the court dismiss this for whatever reason it goes back down to the district court you get a decision from there it comes back up to us it is sort of a waste of juice resources when the arguments on the merits of whether it that time this court directed the district court to and the case promptly i would submit the thirteen years is not ending the case promptly i would also submit that from the very few feet petitions or fees that we can see that we have seen the fees run finback are from november and two thousand and december of two thousand and fifteen reveal that at that point they were in full swing they were billing eighty thousand dollars one month one hundred thousand dollars and next month there was no compliance according to them this is just going to have to keep going on and on and on and then into january two thousand and sixteen all the sudden they got religion and why do they get religion because in the related case that role brought the case the judge enjoyed their fees that's the only reason they want they suddenly agree with the attorney general because it's the fees the gravy train is going to end we hope because the latest order does not and the case they continue in that all due respect is that we cause we will file and appeal of the order denying intervention but we would like that ther expedited briefing schedule so that this case can be heard promptly and the district court can receive the message that it needs to receive which is quite frankly