Anda di halaman 1dari 16

Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 1 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-1

Cases 09-56827 and 10-55084

Submitted on behalf of all 40 Plaintiffs in Barnett et
al v Obama et al 10-55084 Attorney Taitz represents all plaintiffs in 10-
55084 Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al




Pamela Barnett, Alan Keyes et al.,



Barack Obama, et al.,


Supplemental brief under rule 28(J)

Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 2 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-1

CSB #223433

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy

Ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

ph 949-683-5411

fax 949-766-7603

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants Attention clerk of the court :

On May 2, 2011 undersigned conducted oral argument in the above

captioned case in front of Honorable Justices Berzon, Fisher and
Pregerson. Please, see below additional information per FRAP 28 (j).

On May 11, 2011 Judge Joseph Wilkinson in Eastern District of Louisiana issued an
order granting leave of court to file my Reply to opposition to intervene in case
10-1663 Hornbeck v Salazar. (Exhibit 1)_Reply and exhibits were filed. Decision
regarding motion to intervene was issued on May 12, 2011. (Exhibit 2) This order
and exhibits bear vital importance in the case at hand and show the following:
1. Other courts and districts refrain from deciding the issue of Barack Obama’s
legitimacy for US presidency, relying on the 9th Circuit to make a determination
in this matter.
2. Exhibits provided in Hornbeck v Salazar, particularly sworn affidavit of
typographic and scanning machines expert, Mr. Douglas Vogt, provide
irrefutable proof that Mr. Obama indeed posted on the official site White a forgery and not a true and correct copy of an original birth
certificate, issued in 1961.
3. This fraud and uttering of a forged birth certificate, along with invalid Social
Security number, by an individual occupying the position of the President and
commander in chief of the US military, is so egregious and represents such a
clear danger to US National Security, that this issue needs to be decided in the
most expedient matter and appeal should be granted expeditiously.
4. I believe that the forgery, submitted by Mr. Obama, possibly included a birth
certificate number, originally issued to one Virginia Sunahara, born August 4,
1961 in Wahaina hospital and transferred to Kapiolani hospital, due to medical
complications, and deceased at Kapiolani and around August 5, 1961. In
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 3 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-1

addition to vital records for Mr. Obama, previously requested in this

complaint, I am requesting a court order of discovery of vital records of
deceased Virginia Sunahara, as well as birth certificate for Mr. Obama’s half
sister, Maya Soetoro, believed to be issued under statute 338-17 for a foreign
born child of a Hawaiian resident.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Attorney for 40 plaintiffs in case 10-55084.

Certificate of Service

Applicant attests and certifies that a true and correct copy of the above was served
on the:





/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Attorney for all 40 plaintiffs in case 10-55084.

US Commission

on Civil Rights
624 Ninth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20425 C
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 4 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-1

Public Integrity Section

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington DC 20530-0001

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders

The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya

Palais des Nations

CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

International Criminal bar Hague


Head Office
Neuhuyskade 94
2596 XM The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel : 0031 (70) 3268070 0031 (70) 3268070
Fax : 0031 (70) 3353531

Regional Office - Americas / Bureau régional - Amériques / Oficina

regional - Américas
137, rue St-Pierre
Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2Y 3T5
Tel : 001 (514) 289-8757 001 (514) 289-8757
Fax : 001 (514) 289-8590
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 5 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-1


Laura Vericat Figarola


Secretaria Barcelona

Address: Avenida Diagonal 529 1º2ª

08029 Barcelona, España

tel/fax 0034 93 405 14 24

United Nations Commission for

Civil Rights Defenders

Orsolya Toth (Ms)

Human Rights Officer

Civil and Political Rights Section

Special Procedures Division

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

tel: + 41 22 917 91 51



/s/ Orly Taitz

Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 6 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-1

Dr Orly Taitz, ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 1 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-2

I :.,*r ;

tro Tr-r[t tJN$l'Et] s'rAT'[i5

t) I $-t-R x {.'"t- {t{ }Lj R"t'
F{}t{ T}{[ EA5"*'HR5 f ]f $TRir_T
{}F l-{}utsxANA
{'11.'t l, A{-T'l{}l'{ #!{}-t rrrr3iF';{?}
Fld)R\lrll{'*\ (}f FS}'tr{}!{a s{:ltVIt'i..s. I-1"{' li sF,{"1 t{t\ F

fll-,ltYt-lt F $
.:t l)a;l: !r;iLf)l1 t\
\\q }t.{{;t5 i't.i.\]! :
i\.tA{; isl't{A r' },: \,l'tr i,il I \5{ }\
KEli\l,l'tr *t Ll..g ,'Kt'-\', sALAZAR. Ili Hts ! i\lofian fcr lcar e of rgurl l* tilc :,t I'r.';rl.r tr.r
rlr't.'t{'t,{t- {-',"{pA{'t1 }' AS $}.{tt{F-1"!R\ ^ s
t,5!l flf) s-t,\'l-ti$ tlF tlAR-t 1tF.I'I {iF
t\T,'-!{,lt}lt: R{}$ I "l}Oli" -+,tst}F_}, I5 \l*;lion hearing ln interr cnrr {}rh 'l $itr.
HMlf FIC'{,{1" CAPA{'iT} .{S "{a'f'}:\(; !:'5t)
tli l"t l;{'"f {} R, rut I N l.- lt A L. lM ;t l{ AC E l\{ f \T llrl-r I l" ?{ll I I{i an:
SERVIt ll: .'1Nl! Mll{Fll{,{1,5
113\,1{; Fi}I t..\ t- SIR\.I{'I llagistrafe .f r;stph 11 ill,iinson
{} r- f- t.. \ t}A Vr.' Scsiirin F

PR{}t $sgi} oRt}ER

ll*tialr ftlr k'avc ltt ct-rur'{ to file i} replr {ii $pp$sifi*n to m{}ti*n to in{err'*ne [1
Sr" dlrl;,Taitrzo EliQ is herebl gr;rnt*d

Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 2 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-2


v. $
}lotion hearing by intervener Orly Ttitz,
DIREfIO& eilNERA L $f,tNAcElIEr{T Magistrate Joseph lYilkinson


Intervener respectfully opposes the opposition by the federal defend.ants on the

following grounds
l. Federal defendants iru*properly characterized the case at haml. They
represented it as a case relating to the moratorium on drilling only, however
this case develcped into a more {:omplex matfer of continuous stonewalling
and urueasonatrle interruption of normal business of oil and gas industry of
the Gulf of &{exico by the aelministration of Barack Hussein Obama. Afcer
Honorable jud-ee Feldrnan placed an injunction on moratoriur4 Obama
administration placed roadblocks and is stcnewalling the process of granting
driliing permits in the Gulf of &{exico. Ttris policy led to de fact dissipation
of the oil and gas cxploration in the Gulf of b4exico. At the sarne r.ime
Barack Obama travelled to Rio De Janeiro and gave speeches, *'here he
praised similar tvpes of sil explaration in Brazil and srated rhat US should be
the biggest customer of Brazil. At fhe sarne time Mr. Obarna respanded to
the consritutional and civil rights attorneys, intervener, being cRe of tlrem,
bringing legal actions: stating that Obama is not eligible and not legitimate
lo US preside.ncy due to lack of any vital records, tha.t wouid show him to be
a natural born citizen" Obama responded by providing to the public a record
that he claimed to be a true and correct copy af his original birth certificate
Hornbeck v Salazar Repiy to opposition to motion to intenene by Dr Orly Taitz, ESQ
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 3 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-2

and called such constitutional attomcys "carnival barkers"- This dor-:ument,

prr:duced by Obama, was tbund to be a forgerv {Exhibits 1, 2). l-lis acrions
triggered persec.utions of Taitz, as a civil rights an<l consritutional attomey,
just as his actions triggered de-t'acto persecutiCIns of multiple U.S. industries,
such as [-1.S. ail and gas industry. This shows that pciicies of Barack Obama
are not g0verned by concern over envilonment ancl planet earth, but
represent anti -American policies, aimed at destructicln of US industries,
like Oil and Gas industry irr the Eastern disrrict of Ltiuisiana, as well as
attacks on civil rights attorneys. like Taitz, who are bringing legal actions,
exposing Obama's illegitimacy co fhe us presidency, as the roor of the
?. Common fact pattem and common law patreilr, is the fact rhat Barack
Hussein Obama is unlawtull,v accupying the position of the presidenl of the
Unired States of Amerir-ra, using an invalid Sacial Security number from a
state. rvhere he ne.ver reside.d, using an invalid selective service certiticak
and using a forged long form birth cefiificate, and is launching policies
destroying different industries, harming the Flainriffs in this case, as well as
harming the intervener. Thus req*irement of rure z4{b} was sarisfied
3. In addition to the docurnents submitted in the motion to inte.rvene, Taitz is
submitting additional exhibits in orcler to reply' to the opposition and in order
to provide additional infonnation, whic,h wa-s not available ar the tirne the
motion to intervene was filed. This information include: (Exhibit t)
Affidavit frorn an 6xp€rt. Douglas Vogt. attesting tc the fact that a computer
image released by Mr. Obama &s a true and correct copy of iris original long
form birth certificate. represents a forgery. The affidavit provirles irrefutable
proof that Mr. Obarna is uttering a forged document and defrauding the
whole nation, and damagin-g both the Piaintiff and the interv'ener. {Exhibit ?)
Affidavit frcm Expert Felicito Papa, attesting ta the fact that Barack
Obama's birrh certi{icate is indced an altered computer cornposite, flot a truc
and c.orrect copy of cne documenf, iExhibit 3a and 3b show the difference
between Obama's "birth ce$ificate" and birth certificate af one Susan
Nordyke born within hours of Barack Obarna in Kapiolani hospital. where
obama claims he was born. This exhibit shows that obama's birth
certificate is not a rrue and ccrrect copy of a an original birth certificate,
which was supposed to be on white paper, bearing defined borders,
embossed seal and proper certification wording as seen on exhibit 3tr.
Exhibit 4a and 4b show lur8rer evidence that Obama's birth certificate is
not a true and correct copy of the original typewrif.ten 1961 binh certificare,
as all the wording is misaligned and improper tbr a t-vpewritten birth
HornL,eck v Salaz-ar Reply to cpposition to moficn ro inreryene by Dr. Orly Taitz, ESe
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 4 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-2

certilicate, which was supposed to be aligned to the left. Lastly, Exhibit 5,

today's article in World Net Daily which reports a letter from Emmanuel
Kisombe, pe.ffnanent secretary in the ministry of immigration of rtre
Republic of Kenv-a. stating that fhere is a criminal investigation in regards to
reporred birth of Barack Obarna in Kenya, and the fact that there was
tampering and destructian of the pertinent birth records in the birth registry.
This additional information is so damning, that it actually requires a further
emergency hearing, as it slrows, that all the policies aft'ecting the plaintiffs
and the intervener were masterminded by one involved in criminal fraud,
elections fiaud, Social Security fraud, obstruction of Justice, uttering and
possibly forgery.
4. Inten"ener attempted to satisfy requirernenl of Rule 7 -6 by calling the.
attorneys for &e defendants, but did not he-ar baclc
). ln re.sponse ta the jurisdictional challenge, intervener volunlarily avails
herseH to the jurisdiction of this court. Mr. Barack Obama availed himself to
the jurisdiction of the Eastem district of Louisiana, when he tiaudulently
submitted his candidacli to run for the position of the U.S. president in this
state and when he fraudulently masterminded policies aimed at desffuction
of the oil and gas industry in this district. Therefore, Taitz satisfied
jurisdictional requirement per Int'I Paper Co v. Jay, 88? F. 2d 338, 346 (1't

L. Taitz respectfuliy seeks a leave of court to join the action at hand as atr
?. Tain seeks a declaratory reiief deeming Obama not eligible to issue any
executive orders, sign bills or perform any functions of the President or
Conrmander in Chief due to ineligibility per article 2, section 1 of the LS
Constitution and due to his fraudulent election based on uttering of forged and
invaiid identification records.
3. Taitz seeks a declaratory relief deeming Ken Salazar, secretary of the Interior,
not eligible to perfonn any functions as a Secretary of the Interior, as his
appointment as the Secretary of the interior was not iegitimate, as an appointment
of the ineligible Pre.sident and ttrat moratoriums and policies by Mr, Salazar were
null and void due to ineligibility for office and due to his illegal appointment by
Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, ',vho is illegally usurping the position of &e LT.S.
president by virtue of fraud and uttering of forged identification records.
4. Taitz is seeking a declaralory relief that Presidential efigibility is not a political

Hornbeck v Salazar Reply to opposition to motion to interv"ene by Dr. Orly Taiu, ESQ
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 5 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-2

que$tion, bui a legal question, to be decided by the district court as a federal law
question based violation of the Constitution, specificallrv Artiele 2 question i of the
U.S. Constitution.
5. Taitz is seeking an injunction seeking to stop persecutions of her as a dissident
and as a civil rights and constitutional attorney, who brought forward evidence of
Obama's liaudulent usurpation of the position cf the United States President and
Conrmander in Chief by use of fraud and uttering of forged identification receirds
and stop and reverse any retaliatory acticns and sanctions against her due to her
legal work in pursuit of ending usurpation of the U.S. presidency by Barack
Hussein Obama and ending the enorrnous clamage caused to the US industries and
economy at large as a result of this usurpation.

Respectfully S u hmitted,

{- \
4-' z--"F-
/$ Orly Taitz, BSQ
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita PKlryY, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 9268S
phone 949-683-541 L fax 949-7 66-7 603

FllF9.cate of Service
I hereby certify that orr$3dl#Ef above brief is being filed with the clerk of
the court and and will be served electronically hy
CarlDavid Rosenblum c{osenblum@ione, Y

Alida C. Hainkel ahainkel; rmiller @ ioneswalker. corn;

@j ones
Grad,v S. Hurleyghurley @j oneswa-l; dward @joneswalker. com

Guillermo A. Montero; efile nrs.enrd@usdoj.sov

Brian M. Collins brian.m. collins @ usdoj gov ; Rosarine, alford

. @ usdo i. s€Iv ;

Hornbeck v Salazar Reply to oppositicn to motion to intervene by Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 6 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-2

Case ?:'l O-cv-01 *{j3-Mi-Cf'"JC:$/ Dacunrent 259-2 Filed 05111/11 Fage 5 of 5

Sharon Denise Smith; Rosanne.alford @ usdoj. gov;

ierrilvn.dufaJrchard @usdoj. qov

Ifurther certify that I am mailing ing document to the following non -

ECF participants

John F. Cooney
Venable, L["O
575 7th gL,NW
Washingeon, DC 2m04

Marjoria Ann McKeithen

Jones Walker
Place St. Charles
201 St. Charles Ave., ste 5100
New Orleans, LA 70170-5100

/sl Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

?9839 Santa MargaritaPkwy ste 100
Rancho SantaMargarita CA 92688
ph 949-683-541 1 t 949-7 ffi-7 60g

Hombsck v Salazar Reply to opposition to motion to intervene by Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 1 of 1 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-3
Case 2:10-cv-01663-l\ILCF-JCW Document2S9-3 Filed A5111111 Page 1 of 21
Ancmlu lunex Svsrnvrs, INc. 1YEB P.{CES
P-O- Eox t10135
WIDE-MRMAT SGAT{NEFS wr,crAl-srhdesalecf ied(scann ersJom
WE&BA'SEO OOCUMET{T IMAGIIIIG StrTWAffE {,*25) 6il3-1 1 3t; F N€, {24o| 38/-7251
SCAiINING SOFTWAFIE Fo,r response to this leter diehold@ corncasi,net

May 10, 201I

I, Dcuglas B. Vogt, am over old, do not suffer from any mental impairment, have personal
18 years
knowledge ir the following and attest undf,r penalty cf perjury that I have knowledge and expertise
in dacuments, imagrng, sc{rn$ers and document imagiug Frogrtuns. Bosed on ury knowledge and
el$ertise the following is true and correct

tvty Credenfnli
for analyzing this documenL I owned a typesetting company for 11
I have a unique background
years so I knaw type and form design very well. I curreirtly own Archive lndex Systems since 1993,
which sells all types of document scanners worldwide and also developed document imaging
software (TheRepository). I know how the scanners work. I have also sold other dosument imaging
Frograffs, such as Laser Fiche, Llberly and Alchemy. I have sold and installed document imaging
systems in city and county governments, so I know their procedures with imaging rystems and
el'erything about the design of such prograffis. This will be irrporrant in understanding what has
happened with Obama's Certificate of Live Birth.

*s a.tdttt
."-E --.*tii*:F T, ffi
. -r-
-^!*:r- rl;-14;i7jr{:*

rB ti iJlr
.,., ,.- ).
iU^-,_ ; -i*

Figure 1. Tiff image of the Obama's Certilicate ol Live Figure 2. Anolher Persons microlilrned Certificate of Live
Birth daied August 8, 1 961 , presBnted on TV 4/271201 1 Birth dated August 11,1961.

Whst I Dis{ouered dbout Obomdi Certili{ste of Llue Birth qnd whtr it il q Forgery'
What the Obama adminisfation released is a PDF image that tbey are tlying to pass off as a
Certificate Live Birth Long Form printed on green security paper by the County Health Department,
The fann is a created forgery for the following reason$.
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 1 of 3 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-4
Case 2: 1 0-cv-01 663-MLCf -JCW Document 262 Filed 05/11/11 Page 1 of 3

MAY ll,20l1




VERSUS NO. 10-1663


*F" (2)


APPEARANCES: Dr. Orly Taitz, movant; Assistant United States Attorney Peter
Mansfi eld, representing defendants ; C arl Rosenblum, repres enling

MOTION: Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene as an Additional Plaintiff,

Record Doc. No. 252

XXX : DENIED. Local Rules 7 .2 and78.l provide that motions will be decided solely
on briefs, without oral argument, unless a party requests oral argument no later than
"three days after receipt of opposition memorandum to a motion," and the court permits
it. No request for oral argument as required by the local rules was made in this case.
Nevertheless, the proposed intervenor, Dr. Orly Twtz, proceeding pro se and having
traveled to the court from California under the mistaken impression that a live hearing
would be conducted, was permitted to be heard orally. Opposing counsel were notified,
appeared and presented argument. Having considered the oral argument, together with
the written submissions in connection with the motion, including the government's

MJSTAR 0 : 17
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 2 of 3 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-4
Case 2:10-cv-01663-MLCF-JCW Document 262 Filed 05111i11 Page 2 of 3

opposition, the record as a whole and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that the
motion is DENIED for the following reasons.
Movant concedes that she does ngt seek intervention ofright, but only permissive
intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Record Doc. No. 252-2 at p. 7,.[f 25. As to
permissive interventiono Rule 24(b) provides: "(1) On timel)' motion, the court malz
permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal
statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question
of law or fact. . . . (3) In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the
interventionwill unduly delay orprejudice the adjudication ofthe original parties' rights.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(l), (3) (emphasis added).
Intervention may be permitted only "on timely application," Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(l) (emphasis added). When determining whether a motion to intervene is timely,
a court must consider: (1) how long the potential intervenor knew or reasonably should
have known of her stake in the case into which she seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice,
if any, the existing parties may suffer because the potential intervenor failed to intervene
when she knew or reasonably should have known of her stake in that case; (3) the
prejudice, if any, the potential intervenor may suffer if the court does not let her
intervene; and(4) any unusual circumstances that weigh in favor of or against a finding
of timeliness. In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig., 570 F.3d 244, 247-48 (5th Cir. 2009)
(citing Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257,263-66 (5th Cir. 1977)); Effiohn Int'l
Cruise Holdings, Inc. v. A&L Sales. Inc. ,346 F .3d 552, 560-61 (5th Cir. 2003). ).
In addition, "[i]f there is no right to intervene under Rule 24(a), it is wholly
discretionary with the court whether to allow intervention under Rule 24(b), and even
though there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are
otherwise satisfied, the court may refuse to allow intervention. . . . If the would-be
intervenor already is a party to other litigation in which the intervenor's rights can be
fully determined, . . . this may persuade the court to deny leave to intervene." 7C Charles
Alan Wright, ArthurR. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure $ 1913
at 476 and n.5 (citing Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 806 F.2d 1285,
1289 (5th Cir. 1987)) and 487-89 (3d ed. 2007) (emphasis added).
Considering the foregoing factors in this instance, this court must exercise its
considerable discretion to deny intervention. I cannot conclude that the proposed
intervention shares any common issue of law or fact with the main case. While the
intervenor - like the original plaintiffs - asserts the invalidity of the moratorium action
taken by defendants, the legal and facfual basis of intervenor's claim - i.e., the
President's place of birth or citizenship - is entirely different from the legal and factual
assertions ofthe original claimants. Evaluating the timeliness factors also weighs heavily
againstpermittingthis intervention. The intervenor's actual stake inthe original litigation
is negligible when compared to the stake of the original plaintiffs. The prejudice to the
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 3 of 3 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-4
Case 2:10-cv-01663-MLCF-JCW Document 262 Filed 05/11111 Page 3 of 3

existing parties in permitting the intervention would be extreme, given the wholly
extraneous nature ofthe proposed intervenor's legal and factual assertions to the claims
and defenses raised by the original parties. It appears from the proposed intervenor's
submissions that her claims have already been the subject of similar efforts by her in a
"pending civil suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. Record Doc. No. 252-3 at p.36, u's 17 and 18, which she advised at oral
argument is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
where she recently made an appearance before that court. This is a strong indicator that
any prejudice to intervenor in denying the motion to intervene in this case would be
slight, since her claims have already been asserted in another lawsuit in her home venue
and any decision by that court may well have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in
this court. Finally, the o'unusual circumstances" of the timing of the assertion of
intervenor's claims and the President's recent public postings contesting those claims,
which the proposed intervenor and her experts assert in the reply papers are forgeries,
weigh against any exercise of this court's discretion to permit this intervention in a
different existing case.
For all ofthe foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED. This intervention should
not be permitted.