Case Document 212 Filed 02/16/18 Pagelof6 




?was" ML 11 7-1 1g

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
    

511-1112: ET isTmT 1L11?74'71mvm 141151.12

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13111111111117F FRAUD a 1?11
71/5 '77 case. A) A 1111.7 berm? 
?aggide?T 1751211111111 mmUAmag? 6A BY
1 D1: Pendant, 1.1.14" (APT 1.121111%: 111:1 Tam
SA IcHer? c1 11$? MML 
7 1.1. 6114111111745 7 1
11111::qu

 

1- . . . 37' 11151111111111 manage"
.1. HAVE. Bean 1312+ ac; 7,411.. am 13g -

1,:1 rpmv?cmf 1/1 e. Fwom ?r?i?em'T?f 1/151 ELM?idem?: 17m THA
TH13 Cage: (??91424 141217}: off/l
715.150. 17? b/Tky THEM 
711?4114 +9?th IWHT <5ng 
173'] 13177?151116. [$7131.12 141/8" My pHo 
I: THC P1401410 art/[97 Am.
?THem 11.11:. :r mc1/11H 914111111149 BILL
71141] 1141.1? 19 I114 (Li/1:1 T131171 Meyer. 1:21.176
imeimj To 121172117? ilk-30.01% ACTE THQV 

CC Tu Lewes? LLP Dani 
1/1 T1415 1/1/113er Pm} [Hanna/15 Refrimw?m

17715 IDVQSICH eat Sc WIVLLH 
71/1171/w1 Mali/LN- A

1 And 1?7 HEIPIMCV 1?14 THi's CCUQWHP.
171171;. 1:7 OBHV-w?cwa oF 3'10th ls-1/1d7 175? Fainmm?i
rpl'cwc: ACT CA . TTEU [311%. my
1/ TH15 1.121491"; $134+ THC: 70.11
7 6 [315111117 RC 51911111 +1415 

1

 

Case Document 212 Filed 02/16/18 PageZofG 

 

A1323 9% W) .13 He: ~Le_ Calls and? or?: 1?0

7 (mt; 33?: in my kegzb/ It'll/WI For?

HE, I10 777775 (199$: 77/7453; came bv?i?mz?a Lea/3?s C?u?+Ll
Twat-.773: 4m! Pm) MQV c? (78 mac. ?fe/I max/cit?
+Heiv" Fritz/3d; I BaeLmeL 5+0? +1135 Cause: I?Uowcul'v

r? 65? CHE +7116} (3715+ $749+ 97170197
I <7 3? 79;? ?3?7 [33,617 I?m. Ei? W1 a} 77175? 77
9:1 C0 . Mn L131 [7?37 ?lo MIMI

?I?o 3:13" {3,1 NHL-I I 5.??th CW3 ([104 mg 

I'm inEv'?idem??l
i? 35 CILSQ be: Iii/C Whig/'71 37% :1 5 If: 
I: Law/d [[17wa ?566. ,3 ASE
x?I? Lmv?vbIc (hi (2 ?Ci/1 in p?wrg'fi'EICLCE. I 1163:}
REL (if? 15 79 [4 L331 IHC: 3/ find

5 ?aw/7 f3 ?i'fi LIEV VVLC 0 .CI 
+?43er 7333311 H11 hid/Ila; Judie. 1 

\f

gr 1:23?" 17?3355 :5;th
771/3 ardewci. 
?3 CL Sew/1'77 Mei-r7 Iv 5773?? 7716?
[334,13 W1 ?(7)715; If,? $1134}? 
hm, 3d. :wL?V3.9 Mi 9&4:th +53

7 54671-377) 3234! cu I (Mi 106777 136? 175/6 Kes?pe?'ixd
1/3 Ii [786321197 63de 

 

Vyk/A??il?xf" And pfik?fv?l?
7?49?? [Gd-:13" F66 D363 frv??r?f aft-5?43)



I?m

 

7" I
K33, 7 2:174 3? KICK .?mf'z??Har

 

Sim

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 8332 Elisa 8%8/15 Bass?afUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9
10 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et a1., CASE NO. 
11 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

V. TO INTERVENE
12 I
13 DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
14 . Defendants.
15 Before the court are motions to intervene by David A. Golden (Golden Mot. (Dkt.
16 121)), Kareem Salessi (Salessi Mot. (Dkt. 166)), Ann Dawson1 (Dawson Mot. (Dkt. 
7 17 ., 167)), and Rick Satcher (Satcher Mot. (Dkt. 173)). The foregoing litigants are
18 i
19 
20 
21 1 Ms. Dawson appears to ?le her motion on behalf of three entities that she identi?es as
22 ?Muslins [sic], Jews, and Christian [sic] against Terrorism,? ??We the People? Tea Party,? and
?Native Americans. for a Unity Nation.? (Dawson Mot. at 1.) 

ORDER 1

 



 

 

 

'22



 

 

 

ocut?gitf'z?? I53??942otib3

proceeding pro se, and the court liberally construes their ?lings as motions to intervene
in these proceedings.2 I

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), in order to intervene as of right in an
action, a proposed intervenor must establish that he or she has (1) ?an unconditional right
to intervene by a federal statute,? or (2) ?an interest relating to the . . . transaction that is
the subject of the action . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). For permissive intervention, a.
proposed intervenor must show that he or she has (1) ?a conditional right to intervene by
a federal statute,? or (2) ?a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact.? Fed. R. Civ. P. The burden is on the proposed
intervenor to demonstrate that the conditions for intervention are satis?ed. United States
v. Alisa] Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004).

The four proposed intervenors fail to demonstrate that the conditions for either
intervention as of right or for permissive intervention are met. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)-
Accordingly, the court DENIES all four motions to intervene (Dkt. 121,166,
167, 173). Further, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to refrain from placing any future








 

2 The court liberally construes the pleadings of pro se litigants See Brazil U. S. Dep? 
of Navy, 66 F. 3d 193,199 (9th Cir. 1995).

 

ORDER - 2

 

 

 

[Sammie F'l?lWiWiW We

 

?lings by any of these pro se litigants on the court?s docket for this case, unless the ?ling

is a {motion for reconsideration Or a notice of appeal of this order.

mam

JAMES L. ROBART 
United States District Judge

Dated this 29th day of March, 2017.

 

ORDER - 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:17

 

 

 

CV

 

 

00141

?man 





mm?; 
WESTERN m?fmct or wnsm?gmu

 

 

 

 

 

 

JLR Document 212 Filed 02/16/18 PageGofG