Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
43Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
electionslitigation.intervenorMUDD

electionslitigation.intervenorMUDD

Ratings: (0)|Views: 512 |Likes:
Published by John E. Mudd

More info:

Published by: John E. Mudd on Nov 04, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/05/2012

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUITNO. 12-2145MYRNA COLON MARREROPLAINTIFF, APPELLANTv.HECTOR CONTY, ET ALDEFENDANT-APPELLEE
EMERGENCY MOTION REQUESTING INTERVENTION ON APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:Comes now Intervenor
1
, John E. Mudd, pro se, and veryrespectfully state, allege and pray:1. On Sunday, November 4, 2012, the District Court inMarrero-Colón v. Conty, civil case 12-1749 CCC has issued anorder requiring the Puerto Rico State Election Commission toallow all inactivated voters, I-8, from the 2008 election, tovote in the added-by-hand polling station following theestablished procedures for these voters
2
. As the order does notspecify that these voters are to vote only for the position ofResident Commissioner, it is clear that it would include votingfor all Commonwealth electoral positions. Also, the order statesat page 6, that the adjudication of said ballots “shall bepostponed to allow for this Court’s resolution of the merits of
1
A motion to intervene has also been filed today.
2
Exhibit 1 of this motion.
 
 
the I-8 voter’s constitutional challenges now pending before it.”2. Intervenor, as a registered voter and resident of PuertoRico. He has an interest that the elections be conducted in thisCommonwealth in clean, transparent and prompt fashion. In fact,he has a constitutional interest in these elections. The DistrictCourt’s order of November 4, 2012 will severely disrupt saidelections, is contrary to her own determination on theinjunction, is contrary to this Court’s denial of a preliminaryinjunction and is contrary to the Federal Court’s longstandingpolicy of not interfering with local elections and should be setaside by this panel, as discussed in the Emergency MotionRequesting Relief from Court Order.3. Plaintiff represented a party who attempted to intervenein the District Court case but later withdrew the request giventhe Circuit Court’s orders for an evidentiary hearing and itsfindings of probability of success. In addition, given theCircuit Court’s orders denying the injunction, there was no needfor further intervention. It is only after today’s order thatplaintiff is moved to file this request which is of anextraordinary election. See,
Hutchinson v. Pfeil,
211 F.3d 515,519 (10th Cir.2000).
I. THE STANDARD FOR INTERVENTION PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 24(A)(2)
 4. F.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) states as follows:(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court
 
 
must permit anyone to intervene who:. . .(2) claims an interest relating to the property ortransaction that is the subject of the action, and isso situated that disposing of the action may as apractical matter impair or impede the movant's abilityto protect its interest, unless existing partiesadequately represent that interest.5. A person seeking intervention must show (1) that theintervention is timely made; (2) it has an interest in theproperty or transaction involved in the suit; (3) the dispositionof the action threatens to create a practical impediment and (4)no existing party adequately represents its interests. See,
B.Fernández & Hermanos, Inc., v. Kellog U.S.A., Inc.
, 440 F.3d 541,544-45 (1
st
Cir. 2006) and
Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Patch
, 136F.3d. 197, 204 (1
st
Cir. 1998).6. A presumption exists, however, in those cases where theintervener would be a defendant and the Government is also thedefendant, against the lack of an existing party to adequatelyrepresent the former’s interests. This presumption, however, isrebuttable. “’Presumption’ means no more in this context thancalling for an adequate explanation as to why what is assumed-here, adequate representation-is not so. . . The facts of thesecases vary greatly and whatever the proposed intervener’s’explanation of inadequacy suffices must be determined ‘inkeeping with a commonsense view of the overall litigation.”
Mainev. Director, U.S. Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Service
, 262 F.3d

Activity (43)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Jgt Prieto added this note
YO COMO PERSONA AFECTADA PODRIA UNIRME A SU SOLICITUD A LA HONORABLE CORTE DE APELACIONES,AQUI SERIAMOS 4 CIUDADANOS QUE CUMPLI,MOS CON TODO LO ESTABLECIDO POR LEY,LOS CUALES LES AFECTARIA EL FALLO DE LA JUEZ CEREZO,LO CUAL IGNORA,OBVIA,VIOLA y mas que todo va en contra de un sistema democratico,en la que se establece "que todos somos iguales ante la ley,al presente me siento discriminado
gracias!!
Aurelio Cabrera liked this
Raul Mercado liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->