to intervene and motion for reconsideration of intervention denial or use the wrong legal standard for determining adequate representation what would that intervention obtain for you doesn't that go back it's the second point which is that this question of grade the section of the trial court's final order that adopted the consent decree paragraph thirteen as an order of the court because the trial even if we did that the ordinance has been repealed what what what is your complaint but exactly the ordinance has been repealed but right after the ordinance court enter an order saying that the repealed ordinance is unconstitutional we had to non conference not controversial parties to sit down and agree on what they wanted the law to be what they want to the law  that's the only thing you're disputing you're not disputing that the palin ship could settle up with was seneca right so at this point it's really paragraph thirteen of the consent to create docket as a court order that's the issue now i think there is a procedure or if you can give me a yes or no to that question then go ahead and explain if you want but am i correct then you don't have a dispute with the notion that  three damages claims that those damages plains are reliant upon setting actually having what's called a constitutional rights violated by the ordinance so if they actually had damages claims pending then there is a hundred eighty three and so that is reliant upon seneca being harmed by the ordinance interveners tried to come into this case on the side of the government set with the interests out defending the ordinance so nothing to say about that right you don't have any basis to say hey they're not allowed to settle make knowledge they could settle it your problem is with the consent decree which goes beyond the settlement and talks about agreements on appendix page twenty one but the trial court said the sipek will take care that thirteen sections a through g and dot that as the final one order of the court and other words the court made their settlement agreement on what they as highlights can override federal law that's what i ask but i don't think i got a straight answer sorry so i don't think the township of highland can override federal law i think that local community know that that certainly under states of political sentiment and one that no doubt is strongly felt they may not like the federal law but can can the high township several hundred people who perhaps will be for this say you know we don't really care what the federal government or the state governments of us for that matter even if you're we don't like it so we're passing this law they can't go so if the federal government says this is the level at which certain activity can take place and we have in our thoughtful expertise propose these levels congress passes a law work the ordinance without a controversy between existing parties so the court needs a grant intervention so they can then take up our motion for reconsideration and found judgement in which we argued that the court lacked article three jurisdiction  order to even rule on the repealed ordinance but the only parties before the trial court were non adversarial can i ask you since you've asked for intervention on behalf of each of the three parties that those the crystal spring ecosystem it is a part of you that can be even recognized as having an interest right and that and i'm honestly trying to be supply for the people who join city yeah we know like we read it we understand that the point is speak to federal rules simple procedure seventeen first talks about become past city to sue or be sued yes speak to that regardless of what the greece i know your sources for that but it does seem to me that even before we reach the issue of whether the potential intervenors can come to this court to argue whether they were allowed to intervene we have to see if they have oracle three standing right well do we have to say whether they have article three standing the question has come up and in king bursts new jersey this on the one hand that this case is over because the parties settle but that but that you're entitled to hold on to a consent decree which to everybody ad infinitum that they didn't have any chance to speak to that that's real and that's why you can't you can't you're speaking out of both sides your mouth there are say we're not speaking out of both sides of her mouth at the we have to think of quite clear it's not up to if judge baxter took what we provided to work on with no thought entered it there was extensive briefing why does that matter i'm i'm not  by making that strategic choice didn't you by that very decision say and now this case is about more than us and the township well enough to say this case goes beyond that and by doing that implicate the rights of people like that they would be a intervener appellants here who can come in and say that wasn't just two party set or not that's a court order now that binds everybody going forward we're entitled to have spoken to that well a but by the way it's still going on in the sense that we've got consent decree moving forward how can those two things be happen at the same time you get to as your first as i mentioned but it was not entirely because of the issue of course didn't interest and second i have little doubt that in the future if we have a consent decree in cases going forward for instance the case that we mentioned  rights we should worry about it because you think the other side may say it doesn't bind anybody well i'm not sure we should not worry about it but i do suspect that that is going to be ignored but that's what makes i suspect you're right that doesn't really speak to the question of whether there's article three standing for these people on appeal because there's not moot just because there's an ongoing binding court order a bunny poor circle with regard to sit a unconstitutional invalid nobody could say because they're just they're out of balance now you may very well be right about those things but will you be right or wrong because the point is it isn't just about you it wasn't just the private settlement between a couple of i respectfully go back to mike original point that interims all of the potential intervenors getting to this court there has to be article three standing it and it presumably that  court asked for simple little briefing on the article three standing issue and as we indicated our because we don't believe they have the ability to get up to this court to make those parking that's because of right because it rid of something that you had submitted in the court will roll and it seemed to say hey you have to help us with this because we can't help ourselves think that you might have been looking at a filing of from thomas lindsay who is an attorney with the community environmental legal defense fund which is the same organization representing the attempted township at that point in time because they no longer enjoyed the support and confidence of the town ship supervisors the majority of which have changed since the inception of the case and the adoption of the community bill of rights so yeah i remember for remember there was an exchange where they said they came forward and said we agree that we're not going to defend this and so you should let there be an intervention and i take it you know that that was a good bet that  not the opinion of highland township and it's not it's not my opinion i do not get to that he filed that without authorisation i believe so as there's nothing in the record that reflects that anybody ever said hey wait a second we take that back back away from everything minister means he had previously filed the port authority rule on the motion to intervene at that point in time it wasn't something that was right but for me to take it up and say listen we know that you've already ruled on this motion  but we just want to make it clear that the township no longer holds to this position so then the landscape changed dramatically at the end of two thousand and fifteen beginning of two thousand and sixteen in terms of the composition of the board of supervisors and it change again you know i thought it changed again no no there wasn't something that happened where they change the home charter and they wanted to be adopt aspects of the ordinance into the charter to be clear to be clear you were talking about is something that the supervisors had nothing to do with which is put my hand up i really do think i read something where you would wrote after the change in home rule chartered said we have to count on you to help us with this because for the next five years we're bound by what happened we can't change things best in there was a change in dog in terms of the supervisors the supervisor still saying praise the change relative to the home i mean my understanding of the sequence here is you had a vacancy by death a resignation this case how can it say hey we need you to take care of this because we can't do it because we're ballad by something radically that's happened and yet you can continue debating a position in this case that appears to be at odds with what the voters in the house ship have decided most recently i mean how does that happen how does that work as just a matter of authority to speak questions or anything else i can tell you i'm happy to answer whatever you might have thank you very much mitt romney memphis shrimp and water and we'll have you back on the bott filings by highway township because they never did the truck work gave them that opportunity there's a transcript in the appendix from any june fifteenth two thousand and six hearing in which the trial courts try to figure out to take that step back because your new counsel made me want to change your strategy and they say they will give us some time to consult with the supervisors and figure that out the trial court courts as to how much time and we decide well thirty days so circumstantial is because they were kept in agreement behind the behind the scenes and the energy mess were locked out of the court which that agreement behind the scenes which but for the consent decree you don't disagree they could enter it but for the portion of the consent decree concerning the validity of the ordinance now it's up to the us about the content of it he's asking about whether or not they could by way of having the authority