|March 4th, 2017||#1|
Join Date: Jul 2016
Creativity Movement: BOP Case
Re the BOP case: The DOJ is trying to stop 15 new Plaintiffs from being part of the BOP Case for the right to practice Creativity in prison.
I got a letter today from one of the other Plaintiffs, and he sent me a copy of the Response he sent to the US DOJ Attorney.
I am one of the 15-what is really disgusting here is that one of the reasons we are 'added on' at a late date is that Matt was being put in the 'hole' when the case was first being put together against the prison.
For a chunk of time nobody knew if Matt was even alive, not even his Mother.
Matt had sent me an e-mail back then saying to be prepared to have an interrogatory, and that he'd be present via Skype or similar. Also that they'd be calling us.
It's been a very long time since then, and it's their fault, not ours. Disgusting.
I'll also be sending a response. TY to the Creator who sent me the letter. Not sure if you want your name mentioned but I will send you a ty letter.
Here is the Motion filed by the true criminals, the US DOJ:
|March 4th, 2017||#2|
Join Date: Jul 2016
OK, in reading through this motion it is really infuriating. Dishonest.
Firstly, Matt may have filed that lawsuit in 2014--but he did not have email communication until 2016.
As soon as he got it, he had it taken away.
I doubt if all the people allowed into the Civil Suit are from 2014--they are not being specific as to their particulars re a 'cut-off' date.
We are accused of 'prolonging' a case! Umm, no-they prolonged it.
And the Pleading as required under FRCP 24 is something that can easily be done.
Under Fed Rule 24 there are two types of intervention: mandatory and permissive. Here's what's important: Intervention is a matter of right when the putative intervenor “claims an interest relating to . . . the subject of
the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Intervention is permissible when the putative intervenor “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Permissive intervention is subject to the Court’s sound discretion, and. they have to consider whether the intervention will "..unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
So they are trying to prove up that the intervenors 'have no claims or interest' in the case, and/or will 'unduly delay' the case.
So (((they))) (tenth cir. court) have to be shown four things:
1. the application is timely
2. the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action
3 the applicant’s interest may be impaired or impeded
4 the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties
Number four is next to impossible, as I would have to know all the detalis about all the people that are 'existing parties' to the original suit to know why they do or do not 'adequately represent' all the interests of the case.
All four criteria have to be present.
I find it interesting that this is even necessary. The fact that Creativity is a legally recognized religion is really ENOUGH to grant Matt all of his religious rights.
Muslims scumdogs who kill babies eat Halaal. But Matt can't be a raw frutarian?
So this will be interesting, what happens. Matt should win whether or not the 15 movants are part of the case or not-but it could be a strategy to keep certain people from testifying on behalf of the religion.
It's interesting that they care so much. Why do they care what Matt eats and reads?
See, if they have to let Matt have Creativity, they have to let ANYONE have Creativity. That's the key thing, really, imo.