HOWEVER, JUDGE DENIES MOTION, STATING INTERVENTION MAKES CASE “EXPONENTIALLY MORE DIFFICULT”
by Kathy Gotto
(Apr. 9, 2010) — On April 6, 2010, Dr. Orly Taitz filed an intervener motion to petition the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, to participate in the declaratory judgment action before that court by 13 state Attorneys General. Taitz made her motion as a Plaintiff of Right, or alternatively, with the Court’s permission. The thirteen plaintiffs are suing the Obama regime on the grounds that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the health care bill) violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause at Article I, Section 8.
However, on April 8, senior federal judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Roger Vinson denied Taitz’s request for several reasons, stating that “Whether to grant permissive intervention is left to the discretion of the district court.” He also wrote that “the representation by the Attorneys General must be deemed adequate” in regard to their lawsuit against the health care bill.
Taitz had, prior to the AG lawsuit, filed a Quo Warranto and other causes of action with the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia pursuant to Barack Obama’s eligibility under the Constitution to serve as a de jure president, and his assumed authority under the Commerce Clause to sign the Act into law. Taitz had sought identical relief on an identical theory of violation of the Commerce clause as the AG lawsuit. Additionally, because of a jurisdictional problem, Taitz had also filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation requesting that her case be combined with that of the 13 Attorneys General.
Taitz’s position was that the “property or transaction” under Rule 24(a) in the instant action is the recently signed health care Act, and as a medical provider, she had a valid interest in the AG lawsuit. Her complaint stated that the health care act imposes an unreasonable infringement upon her gainful employment as a dental provider. More importantly, Taitz is concerned about the legitimacy of Barack Obama to sign the Act into law. Her motion concluded with the argument that since discovery has not yet commenced in the AG lawsuit, neither the Attorneys General nor the United States can reasonably contend that their respective rights could in any way be delayed or prejudiced by permitting Dr. Taitz’s intervention in the instant action.
According to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning the Intervention of Right, and upon timely application, anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action when the following conditions are met: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, and the appellant is so situated that a disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
There were four hurdles which Taitz would have had to overcome under the Fed.R.Civ.P24(a) in order to prevail in her motion before the court. If a movant is successful in establishing all the prerequisites to the intervention of right, the district court has no discretion to deny the motion. First, the application of intervention must be timely. Second, the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action. Third, the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action, may as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect that interest. Last, it must appear that the applicant’s interest is inadequately represented by existing parties to the suit.
The judge’s opinion stated that Taitz met steps 1 and 2 but failed to overcome step 3, “impairment of interest,” and step 4, that her interests would have been “represented inadequately with the existing parties in this case.” Judge Vinson concluded: “The parties to this litigation, and, indeed, the citizens of this country, have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as practically possible. That task will be made exponentially more difficult if all those who have an opinion and an interest in the outcome of the case were allowed to intervene and to join in these proceedings.”